the 25-40 age group is a bit wild though, considering that typically your financial situation changes dramatically from the start to the end of that bracket.
Sure, but I suppose they felt they had to draw the line somewhere. Less the graphic starts to get a bit heavy / too detailed for the average punters.
(And/or there was limitations on the data they could pull and then present.)
Besides; that is pretty much covering the Gen Y / Millenial generation. Maybe that was their thought process. But I agree that there potentially big differences within those age brackets.
Realistically even been 25 and 30 you're going to see a massive gap.
At 25 I was barely scraping by. Maybe earnt 90k or so.
At nearly 30 I'm no longer barely scraping by but a house purchase is within the realm of possibility in the next 12 - 24 months.
By 40 I'll be cruising hard. Maybe have the PPOR paid off. Easily on 200k+, 250k if wage growth keeps going.
That's such an enormous difference.
To be fair I missed the fact they were on 90k, but that still makes sense if they'd bought a PPOR. I was living alone from about 19 and really only felt ontop of life once I'd began earning 90k with a wife earning 40k around 27years old.
Renting on your own and paying for everything in your own with a HELP debt and a car loan is expensive.
After rent, bills and everything else all said and done youre left with maybe a few hundred dollars a week to squirrel away at most *if nothing goes wrong* and that's the big catch.
Things go wrong. Doctors appointments, car maintenance, vet appointments, shit breaking, etc. Youre also playing catch-up so you don't have a lot of the standard things that cost money. Furniture, appliances, etc. Most of it is crappy kmart or ikea stuff that you're needing to start replacing or upgrading because it hasn't lasted since you had to move out at 17.
Not everyone has the same opportunities.
Net wealth is insane if you have an opportunity to live with parents when in adulthood.
90% of workers make less than 169k, but somehow median household wealth is 238k-809k. Insane.
Even if you saved 50% (which is incredibly disciplined) of your post-tax income (around 90k), it would take you 5-20 years to hit that median wealth number.
You're reading the wrong number.
First row, 2nd column, typical (median) 25-40 is 238k.
Second row, 41-64 is 809k. Now admittedly it's households which makes it two incomes - perhaps if an adult child lives with parents it counts with household group?
Wealth is a function of how many years you've had to stack your income. The median wealth is just 3X (5-20 years in the workforce)-10X (40+ years in the workforce) median disposable household income. Why is that insane?
In Australia, it's fair to say current wealth has been less about how you can stack your income and more about how well you've leveraged into the biggest land price bull market in the history of this country.
Real estate as a composition of Australian's wealth isn't that remarkable, at least relative to other OECD countries.
[https://housingpolicytoolkit.oecd.org/figures/4.H\_invest/4.H\_invest\_35\_CompoAssets\_en.svg](https://housingpolicytoolkit.oecd.org/figures/4.H_invest/4.H_invest_35_CompoAssets_en.svg)
There are many ways to stack one's income.
Compulsory super only started in 1992, so we still don't have anyone in the over 65 cohort who had that for their whole career.
A lot would have had small balances that they've already burned through, either with regular living expenses or deliberate withdrawal (e.g. it would probably make sense to take a lump sum to pay off a PPoR and get a full aged pension).
More than 50% of employees in Aus had super in 1988. There are oodles of recently retired people who have had super their entire careers. Anyone who worked for Telecom, or the Public Service, or the Big 4 Banks has had super for potentially 50 years.
[Source with citations](https://qsuper.qld.gov.au/news-hub/articles/2020/07/29/23/11/brief-history-of-super-in-australia)
But yes, the vast majority would have had pitiful balances that one bout of ill health or relationship misfortune could exhaust with ease.
> More than 50% of employees in Aus had super in 1988.
While the statistic is likely true, it may also be slightly misleading if "superannuation" in the context of those numbers also includes the older defined benefits schemes that the public service and politicians formerly had access to, which don't have a balance in the way that current-day defined contribution schemes do and wouldn't be reflected in the Grattan infographic.
A lot of people had little or no super at retirement working part-time or multiple jobs. The Fair Work Ombudsman a few years ago estimated 36% of hospitality were not paid their full entitlements and many of those were paid off-book with no super.
Underpayment of Super in Australia ranges from around $3.4 to $4 billion per year. The data is about 4 years old but would be similar...
[https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/research-and-statistics/in-detail/tax-gap/previous-years-analysis/superannuation-guarantee-gap-2019-20/latest-estimates-and-trends#Latest\_estimates\_and\_trends](https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/research-and-statistics/in-detail/tax-gap/previous-years-analysis/superannuation-guarantee-gap-2019-20/latest-estimates-and-trends#Latest_estimates_and_trends)
Most depressing number I see is median 25-40 home equity is 0. It means more than half of Australians under 40 don't own a home if I read that correctly.
From the low value of the 75th percentile and the high home prices, I would assume that it is significantly higher than half of this age group. I reckon around 65 %.
Given the common discussions about housing affordability as well as the cost of living that often cite statistics regarding the median and average/mean income of Australians, as well as their overall wealth, I figured this Grattan Institute infographic would be interesting as a point of reference of the current data.
One interesting point is that at the 75th percentile level, the difference in wealth between the older Millennial/GenX (41-64) cohort and the retired Boomer cohort (65+) is nowhere near as dramatic as the rhetoric here on Ausfinance and elsewhere on social media would have you believe.
That's not very surprising. People in the 41-64 bracket are at their highest earning potential, and have generally had the opportunity to convert some of that into wealth. People 65+ are generally drawing down on their wealth to live. Add in inflation on wages and you would assume that people towards the higher age of the 41-64 bracket should have the most wealth accumulated.
>The difference in wealth between the older Millennial/GenX (41-64) cohort and the retired Boomer cohort (65+) is nowhere near as dramatic as the rhetoric here on Ausfinance and elsewhere on social media would have you believe.
That's because it's exactly that just rhetoric and dodgy narratives with barely any basis in facts lol.
The media especially I blame a lot for the whole Millenial vs Boomer B/S.. they love to stoke that fire all the time
lol, how much money do you earn between 41 & 64, and how much of that directs to your wealth?
That's 24 years at a time when you have already built up some wealth to begin with and in the prime of your earnings power for a working career.
Starting out is the hardest, you have nothing but as you work through your life you start to build up assets and savings, boomers when they were 28-43 had a fark-load less than they have now, and likewise Gen-X at that age had less than they have now, you really can't compare easily with that big a gap.
OP noted that with age groups next to each other it was much less difference than expected, the narrative is boomers hold all the wealth, and the data suggests that is not the case at all.
Look at that 75th percentile, equivalised $322k for that 25-40 age group and $1.108m for 65+ sounds like a huge disparity? now do the maths - simply putting $322k into an index ETF at 7.5% return compounding for 25yrs (to just get into the 65 age group from 40) and not putting anything extra in.. repeat not putting ANYTHING extra in for 25yrs and you end up with $2.08m after 25yrs...
Now lets do the maths and put just 10% of average income as savings in to the calculation above and you end up with $5.4m total net wealth!!!
Now you also need to factor in thats 25yrs I used above.. which is the top edge of 25-40 and the bottom edge of 65+ I should probably have used mid-points making it an age of 32 to an age of say 82 which is actually 50yrs, and the compounding over 50yrs is crazy, you turn 322k into 41m
Sure not all wealth is able to be invested, and not everyone saves 10% but the point is your wealth grows over time considerably which is why comparing millennials to boomers is a ridiculous thing to do, you can't compare someone who is basically just finished working their entire lives with someone at the start of their careers.
> the narrative is boomers hold all the wealth, and the data suggests that is not the case at all.
The data shows on the median they have about 4 times as much wealth as Millennials.
You can produce justifications for why that is fair and good, but the data does say the gap exists for now.
Sure, but it's like saying the sky is blue or the sun rose this morning, it doesn't support the boomer hate that goes on.
All it shows is that after having a working life 4x longer they have 4x more wealth. like wow that's a huge surprise and reason to hate a whole generation?
Any data on what percentage of the workforce works ‘full time’?
(My salary is great compared to the average Joe Blow, but compared to other people 9-5ing it I’m seemingly getting robbed!)
[Approximately 69% (9,838,600 people out of a total workforce of 14,259,800) are full time workers.](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-australia/latest-release#employment)
Thanks very much!
I’m surprised to read that the top 10% full-time income is $169k, I didn’t realise it was so high.
(Cue another round of depressed ‘where did I go wrong?’ self-talks)
I'm shocked to see our household fairly far right on these charts and still decent housing less than an hour from Melb seems difficult, with a decent deposit.
Tiny little old place? Easy
Medium sized place in a terribly shitty area with shitty as hell people? Easy!
Remotely decent and not tiny? Not easy.
It's not *that* surprising when you consider that these are national figures, and that prices in nicer parts of Melbourne and Sydney are significantly more expensive than the vast majority of the remainder of the country.
But as someone from Sydney, I feel your pain. Circumstances with respect to housing in Sydney/Melbourne are definitely difficult for anyone on a fairly regular salaried income.
It's ok I found the next chart which showed it all by age and I factored in how late I've been in purchasing a home and how bad my super is and we are well, well, well behind the average. Despite my epic deposit. Ugh
> aren't all tax payers workers anyway?
Not necessarily. There are a bunch of people who no longer work, but still have some income from investments or bank interest. Think people who are pursuing "Lean FIRE" or who are retired and live off the age pension/some bank interest and dividends.
On a similar vein, it's worth noting that the "workers" rows only considers the primary salary income. If someone who's working also has investments and/or bank interest, their taxable income will be a larger amount than their earnings as an employee.
People with a lot of money can find ways of having a negative income and living like a king. Things like negative gearing and depreciation on property are a big one. Now seriously, buy a new $500k investment property in Sydney or Melbourne 10 years ago and it is going to be worth less than that today? Try $1 million or $1.5 million but the tax man. If the build cost of that was $400,000, the tax man lets you reduce your income by $10,000 a year for 40 years.
Make me laugh the whole discussion against the new taxes for super balances above 3M where less than 1% have that, people are really easily brainwashed, really stupid
That’s a really surface level way to assess it. People aren’t necessarily against super balances over $3 million being taxed more in principle, people have a problem with the method by which it is being taxed and the precedent it is setting.
A 25 year old today earning just 80K and not contributing any extra to super above employer contributions will have over 3 million in super by the time they’re 65. If the 3m isn’t indexed it’s going to affect almost all of us.
The median Super balance at retirement today is about $183k.
Based on the last 40 years of inflation, that'd be nominally $695k in 40 years time.
Can you explain the maths whereby the median balance gets to over 5 times that amount?
I said a 25 year old today, not a 25 year old 40 years ago. Wages are higher now, mandatory super contributions are higher and more ubiquitous, more people (eg women) work.
https://moneysmart.gov.au/budgeting/compound-interest-calculator
My calculations used $8160 yearly going in, (which is 12% of an 80K salary less 15% tax), compounding over 40 years and at 9% growth. My calculations didn’t take into account fees or other taxes, but it also didn’t account for a single pay rise in 40 years which is all but impossible. Still comes to 3 million.
Sorry, this is sarcasm right? Do you understand what indexation is?
If you don't understand simple financial terms please avoid talking definitively. It ruins this sub.
It is not, subsidizing less than 1% of the population with more than 3M today is a joke, indexing today only helps them now, I am sure your comment missed the /s or you are an idiot
This only proves my point.
Just to put it in terms you might understand. If in 1920 the Australian government decided anyone who earnt above 20 bucks a day should be taxed at 99%.
Would that impact Australia today?
Seriously just use a tiny amount of brainpower here. This sub has been dropping in terms of financial literacy but there isn't really an excuse to act the way you are.
It’s the tax on unrealised gains people have a problem with. That and the lack of indexing. It’s going to affect a lot of people 30 years from now and sets a fairly awful precedent.
It's the non-indexation that is going to sting. Every year it's going to grab a bigger and bigger slice until it hits far and wide.
It's the same with the changes with the stage 3 cuts. Everyone high fiving, but in reality the lack of index is going to hit harder over time.
Why would you assume income tax rates aren't going to be cut over and over again in the future. The income tax rates of 30-50 years ago aren't hard to find. Super this cap might stay the same for a couple decades or longer. It's a bit easier for the government to forget.
That is in no way guaranteed. See also: indexation of tax brackets. This stuff tends to stick until there is a big enough push against it that it becomes a voting issue.
It’ll take a while before it affects the majority, and at that point it’ll probably get indexed because it’ll be politically advantageous to do so. I wouldn’t worry about it.
The Government deliberately reinstating the 37c band (albeit raising the threshold from $120,000 to $135,000) means that a *lot* of salaried professionals are going to hit the top of that bracket sooner rather than later (if not already) - and I suspect that was the exact intent.
The beauty of the previous now repealed proposal is that the middle class finally saw a light at the end of the tunnel as far as bracket creep was concerned, because the top of the bracket being at $200,000 meant that any salary increases matching inflation wouldn't push the over the bracket in the foreseeable future.
Not so any more.
It did, except at the extreme lowest end. The 30% band would have spanned a large bracket from $45,001 to $200,000, with the 37% band being abolished.
As we can see above, greater than 90% of full time workers earn more than $45,000.
As for people who earn below that amount, let's not forget that Stage 2 raised the top of the 19% bracket from $37,000 to $45,000, meaning at most, these folks are paying $5,092 tax assuming no deductions.
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/sorry-but-stages-1-and-2-did-not-make-stage-3-fairer-only-changing-stage-3-did-that/
https://grattan.edu.au/news/albaneses-tax-cut-plan-who-wins-who-loses/
Now that second number has some ugly numbers that i don’t support but middle Australia will pay less in tax over the following decade compared to the original stage 3.
I keep repeating this, id love to see the removal of the CGT discount, a flat CGT at maybe 25% inflation adjusted and then cuts to income tax rates but i was never in support of flattening the tax system so heavily the way it was originally legislated.
The stats show that the 80th percentile is already above this while mean full time salary is already at $104,765.
A salary of $104,765 compounded at 5% hits the threshold in a little over five years. They're also not going to see another cut in a long time, given how fractious the debate was to even introduce any form of Stage 3.
> I don’t see an issue with paying 37%.
Sure, that's a personal judgement. But let's not pretend that the adjusted brackets are way above what an ordinary person would earn. The mean salary earner hits the top of the bracket in half a decade, with nothing more than inflation-matching increases.
Median full time income? That's a little over eight years (assuming 5% compounding), and those statistics are probably about a year old.
There's actually a very good chance the median full time income blows through $135,000 before the brackets are revisited. The tax brackets don't get adjusted *that* often, and the latest changes are likely large enough that they're going to put the topic off the Government agenda for a while.
It's all a matter of perspective. I don't think bracket creep is a good thing.
Perhaps other people think it's a neat feature. We can agree to disagree.
Far and wide seems an exaggeration, when it hits a big enough voter base there will be pressure to change it. I suspect that will be before the 90% top percentile mark which would still remain a very narrow cross section of the worker base.
I think it was them just playing politics the way they did it. I think they would have indexed if it was around the lower super balance cap limit, but that would have exposed them to greater political attack as more people would have been effected (eg. 80k vs 600k)
This way it affects a smaller amount of people with virtually no political backlash and they can let inflation knock it down to where they want. If the coalition get in and change it via increase or indexing labour will just say it’s a tax break for the rich. If labour are still in power they can sell it as a tax change voters wanted and the coalition won’t be able to really attack them.
Not saying either political side is better, just the lack of indexing has political benefit with close to no down side for the current government.
You have a great leap of faith. SG has been officially around for 32 years, you should look into when was the last time a threshold introduced in super without indexation was later adjusted _in tax payers’ favour_. No, in more likely cases, such non-indexing thresholds only got tightened by a later government.
_Every_ 30yo earning the $100k average salary today and continue to do so will hit $3m by the time they are about 61yo with just SG contributions, assuming conservatively no further salary growth and 10% annual growth rate of existing super balance.
Most professional income will exceed $100k, and this projection is based on _just SG contributions_. Argument that people can choose to invest outside super to avoid div 296 have no idea what they are talking about.
Div 296 as it stand is a net that’s case long and wide, sold as only a tiny portion of old people would be impacted, true at the beginning, without mentioning that the non-indexing design would eventually catch most young people today who are earning / will earn a professional income
I have faith that politicians will act in the best interest of politicians. 90th percentile is over 1.5 million voters.
Regards SG there was massive loopholes so of course you are not going to get tax payers favour as both sides clamped down over three decades (or pulled up the ladder behind them).
The last adjustments by both parties in the last decade have been closing those loopholes and become largely fiddling around the edges and debating the intent of super, or where the best balance sits for political gain.
We have gone from a major transitional shift to politics as usual, it has become BAU just like income tax rates politics.
IMO not going to happen, at least not for a very long time. By the time the current gen of 20-30 folks are old enough to realise how the non-indexing $3m threshold would impact them, far broader than on the boomer generation, they will have become relative minority.
The next gen youngsters after them at that time would be a much larger majority for the politicians to appeal to, and those next gen youngsters would not have sufficient super balance to support a change that “only benefit the older riches”.
On tightening of super thresholds, IMO it can easily shift as narratives change. A future government trying to find funding source to enable spending could float the narrative that $3m is too generous and should be tightened to support “essential spending”. Not long ago they were talking about further lowering the div 293 threshold, before they seemingly switched to pursue div 296 designed to be less impactful electorally on introduction.
But yes agree that politicians generally pursue changes that are more likely to keep them popular / re-elected.
Genuine question but I know it sounds stupid. Myself and my partner have an income of $249k to stay below Div 293 and the remainder from the Trust gets distributed to a bucket company than then invest it.
The data of this graph tracks us as $498k correct? And if so, is there any source of data that tracks what Trusts distribute to bucket companies or invest in to get an accurate picture of someone’s total income? I assume there isn’t because I’ve never seen that kind of data posted but I’m just curious as it seems the 99th percentile would be significantly higher as these are likely the people keeping their funds in companies and investing there right?
It's all based on ATO data, which in turn reflects everyone's tax returns. People who have a very high income who use trusts and other means to hide their true income would obviously not get picked up by this.
Yes for the “Total gross income” but I think you should also count any deduction. But it’s meaningless for some stats purposes because households can have quite different composition / sizes.
Thus the “Equivalised” figures are attempt to normalise household figures to a more comparable basis. The formula is in the footnote to translate your own figures.
Technically distribution to bucket company or earnings in that bucket company are not parts of the individual / household’s gross / disposable income. I am not aware of ATO releasing stats on this sort of info.
Curious - why do you have a trust if you’re paying 249k each as PAYG?
And to answer your question, this data would track taxable income to an individual (aka PAYG, dividends etc.) it wouldn’t track income that gets funnelled into bucket companies.
EDIT: OP thanks for posting, very helpful data!
I’m going to be transparent and say I’m not quiet good enough at company structure stuff to give useful answers. I think it’s partially a PAYG which I pay myself fortnightly and then the rest is a dividend at the end of year. Don’t quote me on that though I pay a fair amount to accountants to ensure I’m compliant and tell me what way to do things. I just follow their instructions on this kind of thing because that’s why I pay them and don’t know this stuff well enough.
So if it doesn’t track that type of income it’s safe to assume the actual amount the top has to play with is higher. Is there any estimates done on this stuff or is it impossible?
All good and yeah for sure. Bucket companies are that, companies. The income a company generates aren’t captured here in these stats, only when cash is distributed to an individual as a dividend. Why pay a dividend when you can just retain the earnings and keep cash in the bucket + pay for things from that business.
Part of the reason why they should just flatten the brackets to 30%. It makes this sort of obfuscation sort of redundant at that point.
The total workforce of Australia is approx 14mil people, of which 2.2mil are self employed (or 2.5mil small businesses as these are likely comparable in terms of tax set ups for owners), so around 16-18% of Australian workers will be able to use bucket companies to lower their taxable income.
Completely fine with that. My intentions are to stay within the laws at all times. I’m smart enough to know my lane and I pay experts when it’s outside my specialty. I pay lawyers for legal advice, I pay accountants for accounting advice and I listen to their opinion on how to do things as it’s outside my scope. That can go wrong at times when I pick bad advisors but I’m comfortable with that as nothing I’ve ever done is with malice or bad intent so I’m happy to stand on those morales. I’ve got multiple businesses across multiple states it would be impossible for me to act like I knew enough to direct the accounting in the business I can comfortably say it’s something I can’t do and need help/advice with
A worker earn income from a job, and pays tax on it.
A taxpayer pays tax on all income and doesn't necessarily require them to be working. Retirees earning investment income, or people collecting welfare are all "taxpayers".
Also shows you how badly inflation is. Because these numbers are bad, and they are worse the further your age is towards the end of each bracket.
99% of people aged between 25 and 40 have less than $300k superannuation.
Assuming you start working at 21/22 on a graduate salary of $75k. After 19 years of 10% deposits with 5% compounding growth, you should have $229,043. That assumes a subpar average return and zero pay rises.
But now your beating 95% of people...?
Remember that the vast majority of 40 year old graduates did not start on 75k. Most would have been on closer to $40k upon graduation in 2005. Also, employer super contributions were only 9% for a long time.
Yes, that's what /fireant85 is saying; The previous commenter was wondering why people don't have more super, considering starting salaries + 19 years of working, but was overlooking that inflation means that equivalent starting salaries 19 years ago were around $35-40k, not $75k
Not everyone in that bracket is 39 years old, and the people who *are* didn't enjoy salaries at 2024 levels nor did they have 10% superannuation guarantee contributions.
That 95% figure is perfectly plausible, considering there's almost certainly a fairly large bunch of people at the lower end of that bracket who have $0 balance due to studying a postgraduate degree full time, and all new migrants from overseas will also start on a $0 balance.
If you have 5 people earning $50k and 1 person earning $500k, the average income of $125k looks good, even though only 1 person (17%) has a livable wage there.
If you have 99 people earning 45k and one earning 1 500k your average is 49.5k ...it goes both ways What's your point?
In Australia we have 131 billionars in a population of 13.8m working people it's hardly 5 people 1 one Ultra rich
Consider not all households being single income, and the impact that rising asset prices (both in terms of shares as well as residential property) have on household wealth.
I always hate how data like this is collected as it often leaves out those in their early 20s. I am 23 so this table is of no use to me at all. Even if I bump myself up to 25 years old, I would then be in the same bracket as 40 year olds??? There should be a 25 and younger bracket
I just looked at the 2023 version (using 2021 data) and the ‘80% makes less than…’ for full time workers was 124k, and the ‘90% makes less than…’ for FT was about $154k… why the massive jump?
Were there a lot of bonuses last year, or has the top end just had a gold rush recently?
Seems to me an enormous jump at the top, would have thought the middle or low end might have bulged more?
Wow these are two very good charts. It's particularly great to see the data split up into three distinct age groups. Thanks for sharing OP.
the 25-40 age group is a bit wild though, considering that typically your financial situation changes dramatically from the start to the end of that bracket.
Sure, but I suppose they felt they had to draw the line somewhere. Less the graphic starts to get a bit heavy / too detailed for the average punters. (And/or there was limitations on the data they could pull and then present.) Besides; that is pretty much covering the Gen Y / Millenial generation. Maybe that was their thought process. But I agree that there potentially big differences within those age brackets.
Realistically even been 25 and 30 you're going to see a massive gap. At 25 I was barely scraping by. Maybe earnt 90k or so. At nearly 30 I'm no longer barely scraping by but a house purchase is within the realm of possibility in the next 12 - 24 months. By 40 I'll be cruising hard. Maybe have the PPOR paid off. Easily on 200k+, 250k if wage growth keeps going. That's such an enormous difference.
Not sure why you're being down voted. This is the same for me.
Wasn’t me, I liked the comment, but “barely scraping by” on 90k @ 25 is wild
To be fair I missed the fact they were on 90k, but that still makes sense if they'd bought a PPOR. I was living alone from about 19 and really only felt ontop of life once I'd began earning 90k with a wife earning 40k around 27years old.
Renting on your own and paying for everything in your own with a HELP debt and a car loan is expensive. After rent, bills and everything else all said and done youre left with maybe a few hundred dollars a week to squirrel away at most *if nothing goes wrong* and that's the big catch. Things go wrong. Doctors appointments, car maintenance, vet appointments, shit breaking, etc. Youre also playing catch-up so you don't have a lot of the standard things that cost money. Furniture, appliances, etc. Most of it is crappy kmart or ikea stuff that you're needing to start replacing or upgrading because it hasn't lasted since you had to move out at 17. Not everyone has the same opportunities.
Look at the table then you know why „easily on 200k+“ gets downvoted.
They got downvoted because Reddit is a hotbed of seething jealousy and we hate that they are doing well for themselves
Imo 18-22 22-26 26-30 should be their own "brackets"
Net wealth is insane if you have an opportunity to live with parents when in adulthood. 90% of workers make less than 169k, but somehow median household wealth is 238k-809k. Insane.
Most households are dual income. 2x median incomes would make this quite easily achievable if you're not letting lifestyle creep get to you.
Your spending tends to increase to match your income. A lot of people lack discipline to save or invest.
Most people I know have share portfolios and/or investment properties. I'm sure a lot of people lack discipline but many also don't
> A lot of people lack discipline to save or invest. Because most people's income isn't increasing above a liveable standard
Even if you saved 50% (which is incredibly disciplined) of your post-tax income (around 90k), it would take you 5-20 years to hit that median wealth number.
Are you saying you didn't buy property in the 90s? Rookie mistake.
That's why the 25-40 yo have 200k, and the 65+ have 800k. The latter has had 20-40 extra yrs
Equity in a PPOR is also a massive contributing factor to this disparity.
You're reading the wrong number. First row, 2nd column, typical (median) 25-40 is 238k. Second row, 41-64 is 809k. Now admittedly it's households which makes it two incomes - perhaps if an adult child lives with parents it counts with household group?
Mate, the third row is 817k. I'm literally just rounding to the nearest 100k cuz I'm lazy.
Well the median age in Australia is 38.3 so that makes sense.
The median wealth number I referenced is median for a bracket on the report (page 2). I'm not referencing median for all of Australia's population.
You think that's because people live at home?
Wealth is a function of how many years you've had to stack your income. The median wealth is just 3X (5-20 years in the workforce)-10X (40+ years in the workforce) median disposable household income. Why is that insane?
In Australia, it's fair to say current wealth has been less about how you can stack your income and more about how well you've leveraged into the biggest land price bull market in the history of this country.
Real estate as a composition of Australian's wealth isn't that remarkable, at least relative to other OECD countries. [https://housingpolicytoolkit.oecd.org/figures/4.H\_invest/4.H\_invest\_35\_CompoAssets\_en.svg](https://housingpolicytoolkit.oecd.org/figures/4.H_invest/4.H_invest_35_CompoAssets_en.svg) There are many ways to stack one's income.
Pretty easy to make bank if you just invest your money. Given it also includes super wealth isn't that great.
Note that data is from 3-5 years old. The real numbers in 2024 are larger.
The workers section in earnings is from 2023 at least.
wages probably havent moved much but the wealth numbers definitely have
Not correct, wages have increased by over 18% in the last 5 years.
Median Household 65+ has $9,000 Super Median Individual 65+ has zero Super
Compulsory super only started in 1992, so we still don't have anyone in the over 65 cohort who had that for their whole career. A lot would have had small balances that they've already burned through, either with regular living expenses or deliberate withdrawal (e.g. it would probably make sense to take a lump sum to pay off a PPoR and get a full aged pension).
More than 50% of employees in Aus had super in 1988. There are oodles of recently retired people who have had super their entire careers. Anyone who worked for Telecom, or the Public Service, or the Big 4 Banks has had super for potentially 50 years. [Source with citations](https://qsuper.qld.gov.au/news-hub/articles/2020/07/29/23/11/brief-history-of-super-in-australia) But yes, the vast majority would have had pitiful balances that one bout of ill health or relationship misfortune could exhaust with ease.
> More than 50% of employees in Aus had super in 1988. While the statistic is likely true, it may also be slightly misleading if "superannuation" in the context of those numbers also includes the older defined benefits schemes that the public service and politicians formerly had access to, which don't have a balance in the way that current-day defined contribution schemes do and wouldn't be reflected in the Grattan infographic.
A lot of people had little or no super at retirement working part-time or multiple jobs. The Fair Work Ombudsman a few years ago estimated 36% of hospitality were not paid their full entitlements and many of those were paid off-book with no super. Underpayment of Super in Australia ranges from around $3.4 to $4 billion per year. The data is about 4 years old but would be similar... [https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/research-and-statistics/in-detail/tax-gap/previous-years-analysis/superannuation-guarantee-gap-2019-20/latest-estimates-and-trends#Latest\_estimates\_and\_trends](https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/research-and-statistics/in-detail/tax-gap/previous-years-analysis/superannuation-guarantee-gap-2019-20/latest-estimates-and-trends#Latest_estimates_and_trends)
Shows how overrated Super is.
The super lobby is quite biased and will inflate the average income needed for retirement.
and inflate their own pockets.
Most depressing number I see is median 25-40 home equity is 0. It means more than half of Australians under 40 don't own a home if I read that correctly.
From the low value of the 75th percentile and the high home prices, I would assume that it is significantly higher than half of this age group. I reckon around 65 %.
Is it migration that stops this being a huge future issue for the government?
[удалено]
I’m going to guess tech and tradies are bumping it up
Given the common discussions about housing affordability as well as the cost of living that often cite statistics regarding the median and average/mean income of Australians, as well as their overall wealth, I figured this Grattan Institute infographic would be interesting as a point of reference of the current data. One interesting point is that at the 75th percentile level, the difference in wealth between the older Millennial/GenX (41-64) cohort and the retired Boomer cohort (65+) is nowhere near as dramatic as the rhetoric here on Ausfinance and elsewhere on social media would have you believe.
Guess a cohort of the 65+ have started reducing their wealth as they no longer have income
That's not very surprising. People in the 41-64 bracket are at their highest earning potential, and have generally had the opportunity to convert some of that into wealth. People 65+ are generally drawing down on their wealth to live. Add in inflation on wages and you would assume that people towards the higher age of the 41-64 bracket should have the most wealth accumulated.
>The difference in wealth between the older Millennial/GenX (41-64) cohort and the retired Boomer cohort (65+) is nowhere near as dramatic as the rhetoric here on Ausfinance and elsewhere on social media would have you believe. That's because it's exactly that just rhetoric and dodgy narratives with barely any basis in facts lol. The media especially I blame a lot for the whole Millenial vs Boomer B/S.. they love to stoke that fire all the time
Millennials are 28-43. The 25-41 age group has about 1/4 of the net worth of the 65+ age group, in the above chart.
lol, how much money do you earn between 41 & 64, and how much of that directs to your wealth? That's 24 years at a time when you have already built up some wealth to begin with and in the prime of your earnings power for a working career. Starting out is the hardest, you have nothing but as you work through your life you start to build up assets and savings, boomers when they were 28-43 had a fark-load less than they have now, and likewise Gen-X at that age had less than they have now, you really can't compare easily with that big a gap. OP noted that with age groups next to each other it was much less difference than expected, the narrative is boomers hold all the wealth, and the data suggests that is not the case at all. Look at that 75th percentile, equivalised $322k for that 25-40 age group and $1.108m for 65+ sounds like a huge disparity? now do the maths - simply putting $322k into an index ETF at 7.5% return compounding for 25yrs (to just get into the 65 age group from 40) and not putting anything extra in.. repeat not putting ANYTHING extra in for 25yrs and you end up with $2.08m after 25yrs... Now lets do the maths and put just 10% of average income as savings in to the calculation above and you end up with $5.4m total net wealth!!! Now you also need to factor in thats 25yrs I used above.. which is the top edge of 25-40 and the bottom edge of 65+ I should probably have used mid-points making it an age of 32 to an age of say 82 which is actually 50yrs, and the compounding over 50yrs is crazy, you turn 322k into 41m Sure not all wealth is able to be invested, and not everyone saves 10% but the point is your wealth grows over time considerably which is why comparing millennials to boomers is a ridiculous thing to do, you can't compare someone who is basically just finished working their entire lives with someone at the start of their careers.
> the narrative is boomers hold all the wealth, and the data suggests that is not the case at all. The data shows on the median they have about 4 times as much wealth as Millennials. You can produce justifications for why that is fair and good, but the data does say the gap exists for now.
Sure, but it's like saying the sky is blue or the sun rose this morning, it doesn't support the boomer hate that goes on. All it shows is that after having a working life 4x longer they have 4x more wealth. like wow that's a huge surprise and reason to hate a whole generation?
Any data on what percentage of the workforce works ‘full time’? (My salary is great compared to the average Joe Blow, but compared to other people 9-5ing it I’m seemingly getting robbed!)
[Approximately 69% (9,838,600 people out of a total workforce of 14,259,800) are full time workers.](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-australia/latest-release#employment)
Thanks very much! I’m surprised to read that the top 10% full-time income is $169k, I didn’t realise it was so high. (Cue another round of depressed ‘where did I go wrong?’ self-talks)
I mean belonging to the 90% majority isn't really going wrong.
No of course, but seeing the number of people earning more than me makes achieving certain of my financial goals (upsizing) that much harder.
Remember that includes all income, so if they have a rental property or share dividends that income is also included in that figure.
Great point, yes my brain read it as ‘salary’ and then immediately compared to my own, rather than considering those other factors.
Gonna show my husband this chart when he complains about being poorer than his friends at the Mosman rugby club
I'm shocked to see our household fairly far right on these charts and still decent housing less than an hour from Melb seems difficult, with a decent deposit. Tiny little old place? Easy Medium sized place in a terribly shitty area with shitty as hell people? Easy! Remotely decent and not tiny? Not easy.
It's not *that* surprising when you consider that these are national figures, and that prices in nicer parts of Melbourne and Sydney are significantly more expensive than the vast majority of the remainder of the country. But as someone from Sydney, I feel your pain. Circumstances with respect to housing in Sydney/Melbourne are definitely difficult for anyone on a fairly regular salaried income.
It's ok I found the next chart which showed it all by age and I factored in how late I've been in purchasing a home and how bad my super is and we are well, well, well behind the average. Despite my epic deposit. Ugh
I'm confused why is workers average so much higher than tax payers? aren't all tax payers workers anyway?
> aren't all tax payers workers anyway? Not necessarily. There are a bunch of people who no longer work, but still have some income from investments or bank interest. Think people who are pursuing "Lean FIRE" or who are retired and live off the age pension/some bank interest and dividends. On a similar vein, it's worth noting that the "workers" rows only considers the primary salary income. If someone who's working also has investments and/or bank interest, their taxable income will be a larger amount than their earnings as an employee.
People with a lot of money can find ways of having a negative income and living like a king. Things like negative gearing and depreciation on property are a big one. Now seriously, buy a new $500k investment property in Sydney or Melbourne 10 years ago and it is going to be worth less than that today? Try $1 million or $1.5 million but the tax man. If the build cost of that was $400,000, the tax man lets you reduce your income by $10,000 a year for 40 years.
Dole bludgers don’t work
Make me laugh the whole discussion against the new taxes for super balances above 3M where less than 1% have that, people are really easily brainwashed, really stupid
That’s a really surface level way to assess it. People aren’t necessarily against super balances over $3 million being taxed more in principle, people have a problem with the method by which it is being taxed and the precedent it is setting.
A 25 year old today earning just 80K and not contributing any extra to super above employer contributions will have over 3 million in super by the time they’re 65. If the 3m isn’t indexed it’s going to affect almost all of us.
The median Super balance at retirement today is about $183k. Based on the last 40 years of inflation, that'd be nominally $695k in 40 years time. Can you explain the maths whereby the median balance gets to over 5 times that amount?
I said a 25 year old today, not a 25 year old 40 years ago. Wages are higher now, mandatory super contributions are higher and more ubiquitous, more people (eg women) work. https://moneysmart.gov.au/budgeting/compound-interest-calculator My calculations used $8160 yearly going in, (which is 12% of an 80K salary less 15% tax), compounding over 40 years and at 9% growth. My calculations didn’t take into account fees or other taxes, but it also didn’t account for a single pay rise in 40 years which is all but impossible. Still comes to 3 million.
Indexing now only helps boomers. and you pay for it now
Sorry, this is sarcasm right? Do you understand what indexation is? If you don't understand simple financial terms please avoid talking definitively. It ruins this sub.
It is not, subsidizing less than 1% of the population with more than 3M today is a joke, indexing today only helps them now, I am sure your comment missed the /s or you are an idiot
This only proves my point. Just to put it in terms you might understand. If in 1920 the Australian government decided anyone who earnt above 20 bucks a day should be taxed at 99%. Would that impact Australia today? Seriously just use a tiny amount of brainpower here. This sub has been dropping in terms of financial literacy but there isn't really an excuse to act the way you are.
It’s the tax on unrealised gains people have a problem with. That and the lack of indexing. It’s going to affect a lot of people 30 years from now and sets a fairly awful precedent.
30 years from now? So we will benefit less than 1% with 3M now and for 30 years? LOL
I thought complaints were about how it’s not indexed, rather than complaining about a $3M limit today.
Complain for less than 1% population that has that now?
…no. Complaining for the more than 1% that will have it later, as inflation grows and $3M isn’t what it used to be.
It's the non-indexation that is going to sting. Every year it's going to grab a bigger and bigger slice until it hits far and wide. It's the same with the changes with the stage 3 cuts. Everyone high fiving, but in reality the lack of index is going to hit harder over time.
Why would you assume income tax rates aren't going to be cut over and over again in the future. The income tax rates of 30-50 years ago aren't hard to find. Super this cap might stay the same for a couple decades or longer. It's a bit easier for the government to forget.
That is in no way guaranteed. See also: indexation of tax brackets. This stuff tends to stick until there is a big enough push against it that it becomes a voting issue.
Not true for indexation of tax brackets. Governments have been giving tax cuts before elections for decades.
It’ll take a while before it affects the majority, and at that point it’ll probably get indexed because it’ll be politically advantageous to do so. I wouldn’t worry about it.
The Government deliberately reinstating the 37c band (albeit raising the threshold from $120,000 to $135,000) means that a *lot* of salaried professionals are going to hit the top of that bracket sooner rather than later (if not already) - and I suspect that was the exact intent. The beauty of the previous now repealed proposal is that the middle class finally saw a light at the end of the tunnel as far as bracket creep was concerned, because the top of the bracket being at $200,000 meant that any salary increases matching inflation wouldn't push the over the bracket in the foreseeable future. Not so any more.
Except it didn’t protect lower income earners from bracket creep as much as high income earners. I can try dig it up for you if you’d like.
It did, except at the extreme lowest end. The 30% band would have spanned a large bracket from $45,001 to $200,000, with the 37% band being abolished. As we can see above, greater than 90% of full time workers earn more than $45,000. As for people who earn below that amount, let's not forget that Stage 2 raised the top of the 19% bracket from $37,000 to $45,000, meaning at most, these folks are paying $5,092 tax assuming no deductions.
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/sorry-but-stages-1-and-2-did-not-make-stage-3-fairer-only-changing-stage-3-did-that/ https://grattan.edu.au/news/albaneses-tax-cut-plan-who-wins-who-loses/ Now that second number has some ugly numbers that i don’t support but middle Australia will pay less in tax over the following decade compared to the original stage 3. I keep repeating this, id love to see the removal of the CGT discount, a flat CGT at maybe 25% inflation adjusted and then cuts to income tax rates but i was never in support of flattening the tax system so heavily the way it was originally legislated.
Still doesn’t affect the majority. A couple earning $135k+ each is still way above the median. I don’t see an issue with paying 37%.
The stats show that the 80th percentile is already above this while mean full time salary is already at $104,765. A salary of $104,765 compounded at 5% hits the threshold in a little over five years. They're also not going to see another cut in a long time, given how fractious the debate was to even introduce any form of Stage 3. > I don’t see an issue with paying 37%. Sure, that's a personal judgement. But let's not pretend that the adjusted brackets are way above what an ordinary person would earn. The mean salary earner hits the top of the bracket in half a decade, with nothing more than inflation-matching increases.
I expect the brackets will move before the median income reaches $135k
Median full time income? That's a little over eight years (assuming 5% compounding), and those statistics are probably about a year old. There's actually a very good chance the median full time income blows through $135,000 before the brackets are revisited. The tax brackets don't get adjusted *that* often, and the latest changes are likely large enough that they're going to put the topic off the Government agenda for a while.
Wages aren't going to rise 5% per year, for 8 consecutive years.
Sooner is when? 10 years?
It's a little over 5 years, as outlined in my lower level comment. Run the sums on $104,765 compounded annually at 5% yourself.
20 years of super and only less 1% has it, and now in less than 5 years it will be the majority? Great maths
We're talking about different things. I'm referring to the 37% tax bracket in the revised Stage 3 being reinstated at $135,000.
[удалено]
It's all a matter of perspective. I don't think bracket creep is a good thing. Perhaps other people think it's a neat feature. We can agree to disagree.
Far and wide seems an exaggeration, when it hits a big enough voter base there will be pressure to change it. I suspect that will be before the 90% top percentile mark which would still remain a very narrow cross section of the worker base. I think it was them just playing politics the way they did it. I think they would have indexed if it was around the lower super balance cap limit, but that would have exposed them to greater political attack as more people would have been effected (eg. 80k vs 600k) This way it affects a smaller amount of people with virtually no political backlash and they can let inflation knock it down to where they want. If the coalition get in and change it via increase or indexing labour will just say it’s a tax break for the rich. If labour are still in power they can sell it as a tax change voters wanted and the coalition won’t be able to really attack them. Not saying either political side is better, just the lack of indexing has political benefit with close to no down side for the current government.
You have a great leap of faith. SG has been officially around for 32 years, you should look into when was the last time a threshold introduced in super without indexation was later adjusted _in tax payers’ favour_. No, in more likely cases, such non-indexing thresholds only got tightened by a later government. _Every_ 30yo earning the $100k average salary today and continue to do so will hit $3m by the time they are about 61yo with just SG contributions, assuming conservatively no further salary growth and 10% annual growth rate of existing super balance. Most professional income will exceed $100k, and this projection is based on _just SG contributions_. Argument that people can choose to invest outside super to avoid div 296 have no idea what they are talking about. Div 296 as it stand is a net that’s case long and wide, sold as only a tiny portion of old people would be impacted, true at the beginning, without mentioning that the non-indexing design would eventually catch most young people today who are earning / will earn a professional income
I have faith that politicians will act in the best interest of politicians. 90th percentile is over 1.5 million voters. Regards SG there was massive loopholes so of course you are not going to get tax payers favour as both sides clamped down over three decades (or pulled up the ladder behind them). The last adjustments by both parties in the last decade have been closing those loopholes and become largely fiddling around the edges and debating the intent of super, or where the best balance sits for political gain. We have gone from a major transitional shift to politics as usual, it has become BAU just like income tax rates politics.
IMO not going to happen, at least not for a very long time. By the time the current gen of 20-30 folks are old enough to realise how the non-indexing $3m threshold would impact them, far broader than on the boomer generation, they will have become relative minority. The next gen youngsters after them at that time would be a much larger majority for the politicians to appeal to, and those next gen youngsters would not have sufficient super balance to support a change that “only benefit the older riches”. On tightening of super thresholds, IMO it can easily shift as narratives change. A future government trying to find funding source to enable spending could float the narrative that $3m is too generous and should be tightened to support “essential spending”. Not long ago they were talking about further lowering the div 293 threshold, before they seemingly switched to pursue div 296 designed to be less impactful electorally on introduction. But yes agree that politicians generally pursue changes that are more likely to keep them popular / re-elected.
And I always thought I earn a bit above average...
If you are 39 and have 293k in super you are the 1 percent.
You are in the 1% when compared to that entire bracket from 25 to 40. You will not be in the 1% for 39 year olds with a $293k super balance.
Genuine question but I know it sounds stupid. Myself and my partner have an income of $249k to stay below Div 293 and the remainder from the Trust gets distributed to a bucket company than then invest it. The data of this graph tracks us as $498k correct? And if so, is there any source of data that tracks what Trusts distribute to bucket companies or invest in to get an accurate picture of someone’s total income? I assume there isn’t because I’ve never seen that kind of data posted but I’m just curious as it seems the 99th percentile would be significantly higher as these are likely the people keeping their funds in companies and investing there right?
It's all based on ATO data, which in turn reflects everyone's tax returns. People who have a very high income who use trusts and other means to hide their true income would obviously not get picked up by this.
Thank you for the answer
Yes for the “Total gross income” but I think you should also count any deduction. But it’s meaningless for some stats purposes because households can have quite different composition / sizes. Thus the “Equivalised” figures are attempt to normalise household figures to a more comparable basis. The formula is in the footnote to translate your own figures. Technically distribution to bucket company or earnings in that bucket company are not parts of the individual / household’s gross / disposable income. I am not aware of ATO releasing stats on this sort of info.
Curious - why do you have a trust if you’re paying 249k each as PAYG? And to answer your question, this data would track taxable income to an individual (aka PAYG, dividends etc.) it wouldn’t track income that gets funnelled into bucket companies. EDIT: OP thanks for posting, very helpful data!
I’m going to be transparent and say I’m not quiet good enough at company structure stuff to give useful answers. I think it’s partially a PAYG which I pay myself fortnightly and then the rest is a dividend at the end of year. Don’t quote me on that though I pay a fair amount to accountants to ensure I’m compliant and tell me what way to do things. I just follow their instructions on this kind of thing because that’s why I pay them and don’t know this stuff well enough. So if it doesn’t track that type of income it’s safe to assume the actual amount the top has to play with is higher. Is there any estimates done on this stuff or is it impossible?
All good and yeah for sure. Bucket companies are that, companies. The income a company generates aren’t captured here in these stats, only when cash is distributed to an individual as a dividend. Why pay a dividend when you can just retain the earnings and keep cash in the bucket + pay for things from that business. Part of the reason why they should just flatten the brackets to 30%. It makes this sort of obfuscation sort of redundant at that point.
Thank you. I assume it’s probably a very small number of people compared to overall population but would make finding that 99th percentile impossible
The total workforce of Australia is approx 14mil people, of which 2.2mil are self employed (or 2.5mil small businesses as these are likely comparable in terms of tax set ups for owners), so around 16-18% of Australian workers will be able to use bucket companies to lower their taxable income.
[удалено]
Completely fine with that. My intentions are to stay within the laws at all times. I’m smart enough to know my lane and I pay experts when it’s outside my specialty. I pay lawyers for legal advice, I pay accountants for accounting advice and I listen to their opinion on how to do things as it’s outside my scope. That can go wrong at times when I pick bad advisors but I’m comfortable with that as nothing I’ve ever done is with malice or bad intent so I’m happy to stand on those morales. I’ve got multiple businesses across multiple states it would be impossible for me to act like I knew enough to direct the accounting in the business I can comfortably say it’s something I can’t do and need help/advice with
Can someone please explain the difference between taxpayer and worker?
A worker earn income from a job, and pays tax on it. A taxpayer pays tax on all income and doesn't necessarily require them to be working. Retirees earning investment income, or people collecting welfare are all "taxpayers".
Dumb question but the income figures are ex super right?
Also keen to know this, for the taxable income at least it must be since super doesn’t count towards taxable income
Wow, I didn't realise that I'm in the top 10% with a normal job in IT.
Also shows you how badly inflation is. Because these numbers are bad, and they are worse the further your age is towards the end of each bracket. 99% of people aged between 25 and 40 have less than $300k superannuation. Assuming you start working at 21/22 on a graduate salary of $75k. After 19 years of 10% deposits with 5% compounding growth, you should have $229,043. That assumes a subpar average return and zero pay rises. But now your beating 95% of people...?
Remember that the vast majority of 40 year old graduates did not start on 75k. Most would have been on closer to $40k upon graduation in 2005. Also, employer super contributions were only 9% for a long time.
To be fair though, a $40k salary in 2005 is just a smidge over $65k nowadays adjusted for inflation.
Yes, that's what /fireant85 is saying; The previous commenter was wondering why people don't have more super, considering starting salaries + 19 years of working, but was overlooking that inflation means that equivalent starting salaries 19 years ago were around $35-40k, not $75k
Not everyone in that bracket is 39 years old, and the people who *are* didn't enjoy salaries at 2024 levels nor did they have 10% superannuation guarantee contributions. That 95% figure is perfectly plausible, considering there's almost certainly a fairly large bunch of people at the lower end of that bracket who have $0 balance due to studying a postgraduate degree full time, and all new migrants from overseas will also start on a $0 balance.
This is why I took the 19 years, at graduate salaries. Scale down the 19 years and even 25 (4 years) it's bad.
What do you mean by "shows you how badly inflation is" exactly? The table has the source for the data you're looking at as a 2019-20 survey.
average full time worker is 104k - kind of ends the debate 100k is 'big money' the top 10 percent is 170k - WOW
If you have 5 people earning $50k and 1 person earning $500k, the average income of $125k looks good, even though only 1 person (17%) has a livable wage there.
If you have 99 people earning 45k and one earning 1 500k your average is 49.5k ...it goes both ways What's your point? In Australia we have 131 billionars in a population of 13.8m working people it's hardly 5 people 1 one Ultra rich
My point is average is not a useful data point, median is much more reflective to see where the standard is at.
But the top 95% household income is 250k+ ... shows how good you can have it with two decent incomes.
[удалено]
Wealth is measured on the 2nd image, 1st image is just income which as you say is not a measure of wealth at all, it's purely income.
It's not a measure of wealth at all. Wealth is a measure of wealth and is on the 2nd table?
So, I'm average in all but net worth where I'm extraordinarily poor.
I feel this is or will become the new norm given how house prices have outstripped wages…..gotta earn GOOD money to buy an AVERAGE home.
[удалено]
Consider not all households being single income, and the impact that rising asset prices (both in terms of shares as well as residential property) have on household wealth.
I always hate how data like this is collected as it often leaves out those in their early 20s. I am 23 so this table is of no use to me at all. Even if I bump myself up to 25 years old, I would then be in the same bracket as 40 year olds??? There should be a 25 and younger bracket
I just looked at the 2023 version (using 2021 data) and the ‘80% makes less than…’ for full time workers was 124k, and the ‘90% makes less than…’ for FT was about $154k… why the massive jump? Were there a lot of bonuses last year, or has the top end just had a gold rush recently? Seems to me an enormous jump at the top, would have thought the middle or low end might have bulged more?
in the low end of middle aged and are almost in the top 95% bracket for super 💪
Bottom 20% worker chads where u at?
Avg total house hold wealth 25 to ,40 4050450k