Save, don't borrow.

CLAPTON

Degenerate wrote: »

What you're describing here is the recipie for a lifetime of under-consumption. Very fashionable with my Grandmother's generation indeed - hence many of them dying leaving substantial sums of money behind. If that's what floats your boat then good for you I suppose.

OTOH, those who tread a less risk-averse path and end their life roughly even would probably look back at the fun they had spending their money with no regrets. They might just consider you a fool to have declined the opportunities that money might have afforded you. You can't take it with you, after all.

methinks that we have a little joker here
I doubt very much that you actually live your own life that way because you are too intelligent to actually do that
do what I say not what I do
a champagne socialist maybe

Soubrette

I think someone has already pointed out how net savers also do not pay interest to someone else.

I'd rather wait and save for something rather than pay interest which then prevents me from spending that interest money on something else I'd like.

Especially in these days of high interest on things like credit cards.

I would say a mortgage and possible a car loan (depending on how necessary that is for a job) would be the only things for which I would borrow (unless I could lock in a higher savings rate than borrowing rate )

2011_will_be_debt_free

...or if you dont have the money to save, tell people they wont need to buy for you as you don't have funds to buy for xmas. You can buy a gift for a couple of pounds to family members - the thought that counts after all.

My new mantra is - if the money isnt there then dont spend any.

Degenerate

Soubrette wrote: »

It seems as if your argument is slightly changing though, instead of most people being unable to save due to circumstances beyond their control, it seems as if you are saying that actually we shouldn't be saving, spend spend spend after all and hope the state picks up the bill later on.

Nope, I was merely responding to your moving the conversation to an extreme view of saving where it went from a rainy day fund to an ever-growing retirement fund. Your scheme is totally illogical for tax reasons if nothing else. That's what pension schemes are for.

Soubrette

Degenerate wrote: »

Nope, I was merely responding to your moving the conversation to an extreme view of saving where it went from a rainy day fund to an ever-growing retirement fund. Your scheme is totally illogical for tax reasons if nothing else. That's what pension schemes are for.

Unfortunately - although I have always joined my employers company pension scheme, I've only ever had a series of low paid/part time jobs - I have 5 small pensions at the moment. Using other things like ISAs mean that I have a small pension pot and hopefully some ISAs too at pension end (plus we intend to downsize this house). These three things in conjunction should make for a reasonable retirement rather than having to work until I drop.

I think I do have an extreme view of saving compared to many other people but it has stood me in very good stead so far, I have never claimed benefits such as job seekers, only child related ones because I've never needed to.

The only thing I can't plan for is my actual date of death - if I could I would be spending my last pound on that day What I do not intend is to be an elderly person who can't afford to put on the heating or eat properly.

Derivative

'Under-consumption'?

I call that responsible living. Just because you get a good job, doesn't mean you have to spend it all on !!!!!!!!. I don't aim to get a mortgage until I can put down a significant deposit, does that make me an "under-consumer"?

You sound like someone in marketing. Spend spend spend! Don't worry about the bad times!

You don't have to use savings as a retirement pot, you can get a high deposit on a mortgage or just buy a house outright. Now you don't have to worry about redundancy, as you'll only be paying out half as much.

Soubrette

Degenerate wrote: »

Nope, I was merely responding to your moving the conversation to an extreme view of saving where it went from a rainy day fund to an ever-growing retirement fund. Your scheme is totally illogical for tax reasons if nothing else. That's what pension schemes are for.

Surely it is logical that if you never have to dip into your rainy day fund then use it as extra pension income? Surely on retirement, most of your outgoings should be reduced so a much smaller contingency fund will be useful and so use the excess to create income?

Degenerate

Soubrette wrote: »

I think I do have an extreme view of saving compared to many other people but it has stood me in very good stead so far, I have never claimed benefits such as job seekers, only child related ones because I've never needed to.

What's so great about never claiming benefits? You pay in through the tax system when you're working, why celebrate not getting your rightful payback when you're out of work? Also, you make it sound like you've made a choice not to claim benefits when you could have, but if your savings were above a certain level you would have lost your entitlement anyway. How is this a win for you?

Soubrette wrote: »

Surely it is logical that if you never have to dip into your rainy day fund then use it as extra pension income? Surely on retirement, most of your outgoings should be reduced so a much smaller contingency fund will be useful and so use the excess to create income?

It's not logical to grow and grow your rainy day fund throughout your life as another form of saving for retirement. It's not tax efficient at all. And when you are retired, logically you will still need a rainy day fund for unexpected events, so you should keep your (sensibly sized) rainy day pot out of your annuity.

2011_will_be_debt_free

I actually have spent time without a fridge before (or a freezer) and then you realise you dont need it, it certainly makes for cheaper bulk buying in some ways but if your circumstances dont mean you need to do that then you can live perfectly well without one, there was no question of spending time shopping for fresh foods as my funds didnt allow for fresh food, certainly not any fresh food that wouldnt have kept a few days without a fridge. Bread, milk, cheese, veg, tinned food, dried food and cereals can all keep long enough to use without a fridge. Iv also had to live without a washing machine, carpets a or vacuum cleaner before - you find ways of getting the job done, when needs must...I think it just comes down to what the individual deems a necessity based on how 'poor' they have actually been (or not)

As for xmas, in this day and age most parents can at least afford to put 50p a day away for thier kids per child giving about £178 each? Adults should be mature enough to realise that they dont have to go out and buy to impress, likewise be understanding if others can't do the same for them. Christmas to many is what they make of it. And if you can afford to 'go nuts' then great!

Degenerate

CLAPTON wrote: »

methinks that we have a little joker here
I doubt very much that you actually live your own life that way because you are too intelligent to actually do that
do what I say not what I do
a champagne socialist maybe

I didn't claim to be struggling myself. As I said before, I have a decent income and no debt. I don't save much cash, but I have assets. I'm not debt-phobic.

I'm quite serious in my intention to go out leaving nothing but the clothes I'm in and minimal funeral expenses though. Anything more is a wasted opportunity, when there will always be drugs to abuse and hookers to screw.

EdgEy wrote: »

'Under-consumption'?

I call that responsible living. Just because you get a good job, doesn't mean you have to spend it all on !!!!!!!!.

I made no attempt to dictate what it should be spent on, people have different opinions of what is worthwhile spending and what is !!!!!!!!, but any money you don't spend on something before you die was pointless to earn.