Tefkat89
Tefkat89 t1_iyciokz wrote
Reply to comment by PopeWallace in Two Job Offers, Which offer is financialy better? by PopeWallace
Ok of it had no mention it's most likley excludes super. But always ask. If it excludes your take home package is~ 82k
I would also look at where you will be living and cosy out living. Rent is very expensive and things cost alot more.
If you're in a major city like Sydney or melb, the higher salary might be better option
Tefkat89 t1_iych51h wrote
Reply to comment by PopeWallace in Two Job Offers, Which offer is financialy better? by PopeWallace
Youre clearly australian and 10.5% super is stardard minium and against the law to to be paid. However you want to look at roles with a salary that is "exclusive" of super so 75k + 10.5%. INclusive of salaries are ass
Tefkat89 t1_iycgx9z wrote
Reply to comment by Tefkat89 in Two Job Offers, Which offer is financialy better? by PopeWallace
If job 1 includes super in the 75k you make 1-2k (67.5k) more a year on job 1 bvut work 2.5 more hours a week. so i think your hourly might be lower.
Job 2 you make 66k plus 10.5% to your retirmeent which would make your package 72k, less hours, not including weekened rates and wfh options.
​
Job 2 is streets ahead
Tefkat89 t1_iycgkw7 wrote
r/AusFinance is a better place to ask this question.
My question is why is super not includedin job 1? Is the salary includive of super? which would mean your take home annualy is 67k plus 7k super.
Tefkat89 t1_iycirvr wrote
Reply to comment by MarcusP2 in Two Job Offers, Which offer is financialy better? by PopeWallace
Lunch is not paid in Australia and doesn't make up your hours of work.