How much money do you need to be happy?

moggylover

lostinrates wrote: »

moggylover, on a purely theortical level I agree with you. As you know from a point of mutual shock , I'm not a universally greedy person and realise the valuee of more than mnoney, children, robins and camelias....(I'm sitting in the sun now with two chooks and two cats playing together and it makes my heart happy). But taking in from theroy and putting this into a practical scenario I don't see how the practical implications of this can be ignored in answering the question. My chooks in te sun make me happy. To have the chickens I have to have somewhere to keep the chooks. It might become my dream to...lets say...produce non intentensively reared chicken from my happy chooks....how do I buy this asset? The money to fulfil my (imagined) dream of chook liberation from confinement costs more than my dream if i just wanted two chickens in the garden. Why should my dreams be clipped like a chickens wings if I can get income to live my dream?

ETA: I am allowing myself the whimsy of the chicken scenario because it seems the very nature of the thread is an ideological whimsy.

I totally agree, which is why in my first post I pointed out that I no longer had the major cost of a mortgage, and that all I wanted was enough to pay for the fairly ordinary wants in life.

I personally think that the happiest people are those that are doing jobs that they really enjoy and that have a good balance between work and home/family and many of those people do not have massive salaries and lots of things.

I base my thoughts on the fact that for many years I worked 16 and 18 hour days to achieve my own goal of having the kind of "house" I wanted. I got there, but lost friends and relationships along the way and so the house brought me limited joy and I sold up and moved away:o . During that time I often found myself thinking that "I would be happy if I could just get....." only to find that the joy of getting that item was fleeting and that it then only meant I wanted something else:o .

As someone who has had two major breakdowns and many years of fighting depression (despite having been pretty well-off financially at certain periods in my life) I am well aware that the money did not make me happy, nor did the things:o . Furthermore, since loosing my mum I can probably afford an even better house: but whilst I can get some pleasure from that, it is not happiness and is tinged with deep sadness by the fact that I would rather have my mum back:o .

I fully understand what you are saying about needing something behind you in order to enjoy those things that really make you happy: and I agree, but that is not truly about how much money you need to make you happy - it is about what you need to be doing and what you need around you to be happy:D .

A bloomin Ferrari is useless around here anyway - it would get stuck on every humpty back bridge in the area, and would probably drown in some of the puddles:D Furthermore, there would not be room in the back for me shoppin from Tesco, a hay bale for the rabbits, or the cat food trays:D

moggylover

michaels wrote: »

I have this theory about being rich - those people who are driven enough to get rich are psychologically not able to retire with their 1st million and live off the interest whereas those of us who would be able to appreciate that much money will never get there but just continue plodding along hoping each months pay check will cover that months spending

Exactly! It is about the happiness gene - not the money:D

chopperharris

Its a simple maths , but not a simple calculation.

A is needs.
B is comfort.
C is luxury.

But the value of each is variable , one persons needs is anothers comfort and anothers luxury and so on.

As one poster commented something about class lifestyle.This proves the theory that as long as there is a class divide the need for one person is actually a luxury for another then the amount changes.

For the wife and I our combined spendable income is around 24k pa , interest from savings/investments pay our bills.Our idea of luxury is a home in the sun and in the uk.Our idea of needs are met (A), so our comfort (B)comes from the financial security of having our needs met......and our wants are (C)without credit to impact either A or B.

Just how the figure of 40k is reached in the land of the the unfree I cannot fathom , they pay for healthcare insurance which wont cover them if they are long term ill.It seems a low amount to me for there , but for here its probably about right.

However as all our needs are met our aspirations rise to the next step , and as shown by the amount of credit our populous uses we try to live the next step along on the income of the lower one.

jayII

To be happy--not very much, just enough for accomodation, plus essential bills, food, and clothing for the 4 of us. I suppose around £25-30,000 after tax would make us very comfortable. Having enough for extras like extreme sports and exotic holidays would of course be very nice, but wouldn't be the deciding factor of my happiness on a day-to-day basis. For me that is freedom from worry as far as everyday bills are concerned. My teens would disagree though, they see holidays and 'extras' as essentials. OH feels much the same as me.

lostinrates

moggylover wrote: »

I totally agree, which is why in my first post I pointed out that I no longer had the major cost of a mortgage, and that all I wanted was enough to pay for the fairly ordinary wants in life.
Yes, I can see that now, after your driven period, it must be a lovely, lovely life
I personally think that the happiest people are those that are doing jobs that they really enjoy and that have a good balance between work and home/family and many of those people do not have massive salaries and lots of things.
I think thats certainly a good start. I think peole have different things that make them tick though..thinks like dreams, goals, ideologies. I think I'm a little of each type of person

I base my thoughts on the fact that for many years I worked 16 and 18 hour days to achieve my own goal of having the kind of "house" I wanted. I got there, but lost friends and relationships along the way and so the house brought me limited joy and I sold up and moved away:o . During that time I often found myself thinking that "I would be happy if I could just get....." only to find that the joy of getting that item was fleeting and that it then only meant I wanted something else:o .

For some few people I think the quest for perfection....whether thats in finacial gain, or spiritual acheivement really is a sort of love or quest, and without the drive their life would be incomplete.

As someone who has had two major breakdowns and many years of fighting depression (despite having been pretty well-off financially at certain periods in my life) I am well aware that the money did not make me happy, nor did the things:o . Furthermore, since loosing my mum I can probably afford an even better house: but whilst I can get some pleasure from that, it is not happiness and is tinged with deep sadness by the fact that I would rather have my mum back:o .

Who could make up for losing a mother with a nicer house. But getting the house of your dreams because you have worked for it, and proved yourself, possibly your business plans or abilities.....and earned it....thats a very different scenario.

I fully understand what you are saying about needing something behind you in order to enjoy those things that really make you happy: and I agree, but that is not truly about how much money you need to make you happy - it is about what you need to be doing and what you need around you to be happy:D .
I think the tewo can be both entirely separate and totally linked. If to do what you need o be doing you need to have money behind you and you can earn it, it is no less of a happiness

A bloomin Ferrari is useless around here anyway - it would get stuck on every humpty back bridge in the area, and would probably drown in some of the puddles:D Furthermore, there would not be room in the back for me shoppin from Tesco, a hay bale for the rabbits, or the cat food trays:D

LOL, one of our rich neighbours has just replaced his ferrari with a huge black, blacked out windowed rangerover which he enjoys driving everyone else off the road into the ditches and potholes...that of course HIS car could cope with.


I see absolutely nothing wrong in the lovely sentiments expressed by Ninky, and indeed you, but I don't think they are applicable to us all. I'm genuinely delighted for everyone who is fulfilled with less, but DH and I want the right to strive for more. We too lived with very little expenditure and have been wildly happy, but part of that happiness was living in the there and then and part has been constructing the plans for our dreams. We don't mind the scarifices and harder work these big dreams demand, and as you know from t'othrr board, its not something we want given to us: acheiving it with our own graft is part of it for us.

I think its suggesting lack of happiness in someone's own lifestyle that sometimes, though by know means always, results in plans like this.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

The idea of a maximum income is palpable nonsense. We already had this - to a degree - in the 60s and 70s with supertax of 98% on high earnings. It did nothing except drive entrepeneurs and wealth creators overseas, stifle innovation and creativity and make us an economic backwater.

I thought the 60s and 70s were the height of creativity in this country. Isn't that when we had our most successful music exports, some of the best authors and playrights and a general flourishing in the arts as social mobility increased and fresh ideas came through. It was also the time when the population of the UK as a whole was most happy with life.

I'm not suggesting a supertax like we had then, rather a cap on earnings. £20 000 a week is a lot of money. Why should ANYONE get more than that. And what about the innovation and creativity that is currently being stifled every day by poverty?

Communist or fascist - why should I be either? What political label do you give yourself?

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm genuinely delighted for everyone who is fulfilled with less, but DH and I want the right to strive for more.

but would you really want to earn more than 20k a week?! how much is enough?

to me desiring more than that suggests some deep seated unhappiness that i suspect no money would ever be enough to remove....

MrDT

Earn below national average and I'm happy. All other things being equal, and earning twice as much I'd probably be happier. Triple it even happier. There's no direct correlation, but money coming in plays a part in my happiness, sure.

tomterm8

ninky wrote: »

Studies have suggested that there is a maximum income above which happiness is not increased.

Those studying "Hedonics" have given figures such as $40 000 (yes, many of them are American).
.

Money can't buy you happiness, but it can certainly buy you a better class of misery.

Broken_hearted

Just send a cheque for £20,000 the I'll be happy.