Browsing tag: money

Nothing feels quite as sweet as returning to being a two-income household.

I love it. He loves it. It’s not the most stimulating of work, but the culture is great, the boss goes above and beyond, and (touch wood) the plan is a fast track to a much more advanced position. The hours are long, so even though he’s not making quite as much as he once did, it evens out. There’s opportunity for more OT, and unlike when he worked as a fabricator, it doesn’t seem that if you work one extra Saturday morning, they’ll milk you for more and more and more until you collapse from exhaustion.

So for the first time ever, we’re both saving regularly, paying ourselves first. He’s spending more than I think if necessary on, well, stuff (I have no idea what) but the whole idea of blow money is that he can buy whatever he wants and I don’t judge. And he’s handling that from his own account – also a first. I’m having to restrain myself from clucking over it  and checking in like a mother hen – as long as he doesn’t overdraft (or ideally, dip below $100), it’s his domain.

Our money is not, and never has been, fully merged. I imagine once we’re married we will, but for now, our savings are separate due to the disparity.

Instead, he’s contributing a percentage to our household expenses, enabling me to up the amount I’m saving. So far, it seems the easiest way is to reduce the amount I’ve been putting toward all our bills by his contribution. In effect, basically funneling it straight into my saving account. After all, I’ve been covering everything on my own up till now, so anything he puts in basically equals how much extra I can save.

It’s a little scary for me, relinquishing total control. After all, the last time he had free rein over a bank account, he ended up nearly $1000 in the hole. I imagine it’s a little like letting your child ride a bike, or watching them learn to walk for the first time. Seeing them off to kindy on the first day. Wish us luck!

There’s plenty going on in the political scene at the moment. There’s all the alcohol reforms (which I really don’t care about, given how much I drink and my age), tighter rules for the adventure tourism industry, and the talk about our abysmal savings rate and murmurings of compulsory superannuation.

While I personally think that the choice should remain ours, I believe you’re a fool if you’re not in Kiwisaver. I realise everybody’s situation is different, but I think most people can manage the minimum 2 per cent, especially if it’s taken out before you get your paycheck.

How can you not want to have the option to retire some day? I don’t doubt couples can survive on $24k NZ Super a year, but if you want to travel or basically enjoy anything but the basics, or don’t own your home outright, it’s going to be a pretty austere existence. And who’s to say Super will still be around for us in our old age? 40 years is a long time and many government terms away.

I know a couple of retirement age who still rent, run their own business and work crazy hours, getting up before dawn. And hey, if that’s what you want to do, that’s great. But they’ve worked hard all their lives, and I don’t think it is. Wouldn’t it be nice to not be bound by the need to continue earn a living?

I’m grateful that my own parents – as far as I know – are fairly secure. Because since I started taking an interest in personal finance, I’ve heard WAY too many horror stories of family bailouts, obligations and – worst of all – taking in ageing parents who have nowhere else to live.

I read a lot of PF blogs. That much is probably obvious.

And yet, I tend to skim over spending recaps and “no spending” challenges.  I understand why people do it, and yet in a sense, I don’t really “get” the concept, For those who tend to spend frivolously – think latte factor, I guess – it can be a great motivator. A challenge to cut back, one day at a time.

But what would I get out of it? I would simply try to cram my purchases into even fewer days, I guess…which would have the same net result, and probably stress me out.

Looking back on what we’ve bought this week  (this doesn’t include T’s personal expenditures…I have no idea what his spending diary would look like. Maybe he’d benefit from a few no spend days himself ;))  there really aren’t any purchases I regret. It’s a fairly typical week for us, although granted, we had a free dinner on Friday night, which we might otherwise have paid for. I guess I’ve just never been the kind to impulsively buy a bag of chips or a cold smoothie, you know?

Aug 26 – 9.90 on a magazine in which I had two pieces published, 28.80 on topping up my bus card
Aug 27 – 500 rent
Aug 28 – 20.99 on batteries and food, 65 on gas, 7.20 on breakfast for two
Aug 29 – 167.31 groceries
Aug 30 – 0
Aug 31 – 0
Sep 1 – 0

Are you a fan of no-spend days? How do they help you?

(via My Pretty Pennies!)

1. The most I’ve spent this last week was on groceries, $167. That’s nearly $40 over budget, thanks to: buying mouthwash and a lightbulb ($15 together – we have these ridiculous huge light fixtures!), shopping last thing on a Sunday night when the shelves were half bare (no chicken, no mince, etc) and buying lots of treats (expensive bread, filo pastry, doughnuts, ice cream, Toffee Pops).

2. Today I feel optimistic about my money. It’s been a wacky few weeks – T is working again, but with that came some new job expenses, plus extra gas and lunch food costs. And my paycheck this week will include an extra day of overtime.

3. Money can’t buy happiness. One free/inexpensive thing I did last week that made me happy was going to a movie premiere. Also, free burgers (thanks to the goody bags we got there from Paramount Pictures) and settling in with a DVD on Friday night.

4. I will consider this week a success if we manage to get organised and grocery shop on Saturday morning, and this PR guy comes back to me on time so a piece I’m working on comes together for deadline.

5. My favorite room in a house is ooooooh. Probably the kitchen.

Recently I got into a bit of a debate in the forum of, well, a simple Facebook status. Basically, somebody (and subsequently others) took umbrage at the fact that the paper, in a story on women and high income households feeling the financial pinch, labelled $60k a high income.

Now, I’m pretty sure I actually participated in the survey that the story was based on. I would probably also wager that it was Dun & Bradstreet that set the income bands offered in the answers, and decided the cutoff point for a higher-than-average wage.

But I digress. Initially, I wanted to stand up for the reporter, but most of all, I wanted to reinforce the fact, contrary to their statements, I believe $60k is nowhere NEAR the average household income in New Zealand (more like $45k).

Comments were basically along the lines of “they don’t know what they’re talking about“, and “Even 60k for one person is not that high“.

Look, NZ is expensive. I don’t earn $60k, but although I would never be able to buy a house on that amount, it would certainly support two people. Maybe it’s not “high” in some people’s eyes – I don’t necessarily think it’s all that much, either – but it’s far from poverty level and certainly not the average.

According to Statistics NZ, the median weekly income last year was $538; for people receiving income from wages and salaries, $760.

Is $60k the average income for a worker? Clearly not.

Now, the main, and more contentious point about how realistic that claim was: “That’s barely two minimum wage-salaries combined“.

For the record, two workers earning minimum wage would net just over $52k gross.

I pointed out that there are plenty of students, single/noncohabiting/divorced people, part-time workers, people on benefits, and those on low or minimum wage out there; NZ is not exactly a high-wage economy. Plus there’s that whole minefield of the definition of “average” – mean? median? – and that not all households have two incomes.

(Another point was raised about most households having multiple people spending the income – children I presume – and while that may be a fair point…I don’t know what the “average” household makeup is these days…but I don’t think outgoings are relevant to the matter of income for this purpose.)

So, what about for a household? Well, clearly it’s not hard for a dual-income household with both working fulltime to hit the mark.  But I just wasn’t sure that those would make up the majority of households, and stood by the belief that calling $60k a “high income” isn’t inherently wrong.

According to census numbers and income surveys (also to be found on Stats NZ), the average household income derived from wages and salaries was $46,000 last year. So, not quite. BUT, the median annual household income was $63,867 (other contributing sources included government support, self employment and investments). So, it looks like I should concede on that point.

What do you consider an average wage, or high income, wherever you are?