Frugal Living Challenge 2011 - part 2

rubytuesday

I'm sure Erne will correct me if I'm wrong but I think she just means £32 or whatever is a lot of money every six weeks and she is joking that her hair style is out of date.

rubytuesday

Sorry to hear your husband hasn't been so good Sandra.

SandraScarlett

rubytuesday wrote: »

I'm sure Erne will correct me if I'm wrong but I think she just means £32 or whatever is a lot of money every six weeks and she is joking that her hair style is out of date.

I didn't read it like that all Ruby, after all, £32 every 6 weeks or so is only about £5 a week. If older women, like me, who have worked hard all their life, and are still paying tax to help others, now have to justify spending £5, it's incredible.

I read it that Erme was talking about older women, who want to spend their own money as they wish, even if their hairstyle is dated, in Erme's opinion.

Thank you for your good wishes about DH. The Aricept isn't doing the good that it did - and his condition is deteriorating quite rapidly. I like to look "nice" for him, as well as myself, and always have done so.

xx

redglass_2

Erme wrote: »

I know..when it's only every few months it's perfectly justifiable. when it's every 6 weeks it's not. There's a huge difference. And is it me or do you get to a certain age whereby your hair has to be cut 'just so' or else it's not right...even if like that 'just so' cut is 20 years out of date ..

Depends on how long/layered your hair is. If you wear it in a short layered style like mine, you can't leave it much longer than 6 weeks, and mine has to look neat for job reasons. I agree with you about getting to a certain age, though. Mine needs better cutting/styling than it did when I was younger, and also needs colouring. I pay a lot more than £32 but I budget for it. I have just one hairdresser who really suits me, so I have to pay her rates if I want that good haircut.

SandraScarlett wrote: »

From what I can gather, she is in a lot of debt, but has her hair cut every 6 weeks, at £32 a go. But surely that's her decision! She's not asking anyone to lend her money to repay her debt, and has been resourceful enough to write a book, in the hope that enough people will buy it, and eventually reduce her debt.

I wasn't the slightest bit bothered about whatever she chooses to spend on her hair, whereas when I read the story about the woman on benefits who had breast implants, I saw red!
xx

Not sure I quite agree with you here, Sandra, since she wasn't asking for anyone else's money, true, but while she was running up those huge debts on things she couldn't afford, she was in effect spending other people's money since she couldn't pay them for their goods and services - and was choosing her haircuts over repaying her debts. I didn't see the story about the woman with breast implants so can't comment except to say a) I think implants are a bad idea most of the time regardless of income and b) if a benefit isn't means-tested, and has been earned by qualifying contributions (like the state pension, say) then it's yours, and you can do what you like with it, even get yourself some false boobies if that's what you fancy, because it's an entitlement; you've already earned it. But as I said, I don't know about the case or what benefits she was on, so I shall shut up about her and her bust now. (I am in two minds whether to post this - perhaps we shall be discussing The Bust for several pages!)

I also hope my comment about 'spending other people's money' hasn't offended any 'debt-free wannabees' posting here. I wouldn't normally put it in such harsh terms, but they made my point more clearly. Besides, those of us who are MSE have had our lightbulb moment.

ceridwen

I think we probably all have spending "hot buttons" - ie things that are particularly important to us personally. I know which particular things are likely to touch up against my own personal ones and can understand why someone who is debt-free themselves and has reached "a certain age" will feel very attached to/entitled to spend on those "particularly important to them - and not an extravagance by any reasonable persons definition".

I think we need to be clear here that is what being talked about is just the spending of the author of the book (and others of similar debt-ladenness by their own doing) and NOT someone who has managed their resources well.

I certainly understand anyone of a certain age thinking "Well - by my age - I SHOULD be able to have normal everyday spending without having to think about it" and thats perfectly fair where they have indeed managed their money well and arent in debt to others.

Erme

SandraScarlett wrote: »

Hi all. Hope everyone is OK. Haven't been on much lately as DH hasn't been too good of late, but have read all the posts every few days, and had to comment on the £32 hair cut lady.

From what I can gather, she is in a lot of debt, but has her hair cut every 6 weeks, at £32 a go. But surely that's her decision! She's not asking anyone to lend her money to repay her debt, and has been resourceful enough to write a book, in the hope that enough people will buy it, and eventually reduce her debt.

I wasn't the slightest bit bothered about whatever she chooses to spend on her hair, whereas when I read the story about the woman on benefits who had breast implants, I saw red!

And what did you mean, Erme, when you said:

I know..when it's only every few months it's perfectly justifiable. when it's every 6 weeks it's not. There's a huge difference. And is it me or do you get to a certain age whereby your hair has to be cut 'just so' or else it's not right...even if like that 'just so' cut is 20 years out of date :rotfl:..

Having your hair cut every 6 weeks, instead of every few months, is actually only twice as much. My hair grows very quickly and loses its shape, whereas someone else may not need a cut that frequently.

In my case, my hair definitely has to be cut "just so", and though, if you saw me, you might think I look 20 years out of date, and it makes you laugh, it gives me confidence. Because after nearly 70 years, living with my hair, I am the best judge of what style I can cope with, whether it's the height of fashion or not.

xx

I really meant no offence by that comment. I just look at folk like Ma who has to have her hair a certain way and what not and spends a fortune on it but gets it at a good price.... I'm not particularly bothered if my hair cut is '20 years out of date'....not keen on a lot of the modern styles anyway. And being able to carry off something that is not fashionable is a sign of confidence and inner well being. Just because we're frugal doesn't mean we have to go round the planet with our head hanging down looking like we're sad all the time. That was my point....more than anything else...

rubytuesday wrote: »

I'm sure Erne will correct me if I'm wrong but I think she just means £32 or whatever is a lot of money every six weeks and she is joking that her hair style is out of date.

ceridwen wrote: »

I think we probably all have spending "hot buttons" - ie things that are particularly important to us personally. I know which particular things are likely to touch up against my own personal ones and can understand why someone who is debt-free themselves and has reached "a certain age" will feel very attached to/entitled to spend on those "particularly important to them - and not an extravagance by any reasonable persons definition".

I think we need to be clear here that is what being talked about is just the spending of the author of the book (and others of similar debt-ladenness by their own doing) and NOT someone who has managed their resources well.

I certainly understand anyone of a certain age thinking "Well - by my age - I SHOULD be able to have normal everyday spending without having to think about it" and thats perfectly fair where they have indeed managed their money well and arent in debt to others.

I know it varies per person. I mean...the initial :eek: by the board was over her £32 hair cut...I was just adding my two pennyworth.. What is essential to some is a luxury to others and we are not hear to judge. Just to encourage. I pray I didn't come across as 'lost in translation'.....I know I've been made to feel like I have to justify every 2p I spend on here sometimes and I pray I've not made anyone feel like that over something as benign budget wise as a hair cut... Hair is hair...nothing worse than one that hasn't been cut for years looking all thin at the ages, or equally the women who are so obsessed with having it long and putting it up in a bun they've got bald patches. I'd sooner have it shorter sooner. Long hair isn't everything......However....whatever your hair style keep it healthy and I'm happy. I really don't care how much you spend on it...it's your hair and you're crowning glory and worthy of attention...

Pray that's cleared that up. I really don't mean to disagree on least little point......Like I said...so sorry if I've caused offence as really didn't mean to

Hugs

E

SandraScarlett

Thank you for your apology Erme, but I think it just goes to show how easily the written word can be misinterpreted, and I know you have been upset in the past, by something someone has posted, that you felt was directed at you.

I'm also probably being very touchy about what people choose to spend their benefits on, because as redglass rightly says, it's theirs to spend on whatever they like. It's just this lady was saying she got so much in benefits, that there was ample for her to save £7000 for her implants.

It just seemed a tad unfair to me that there were people going to work, and paying taxes on their earnings, in order to fund her breasts.

xx

redglass_2

ceridwen wrote: »

I think we probably all have spending "hot buttons" - ie things that are particularly important to us personally. I know which particular things are likely to touch up against my own personal ones and can understand why someone who is debt-free themselves and has reached "a certain age" will feel very attached to/entitled to spend on those "particularly important to them - and not an extravagance by any reasonable persons definition".

I think we need to be clear here that is what being talked about is just the spending of the author of the book (and others of similar debt-ladenness by their own doing) and NOT someone who has managed their resources well.

I certainly understand anyone of a certain age thinking "Well - by my age - I SHOULD be able to have normal everyday spending without having to think about it" and thats perfectly fair where they have indeed managed their money well and arent in debt to others.

Yes, well said! We all have our 'hot buttons' and money means different things to different people: what's a luxury to one is a necessity to another for practical reasons (if I never had to meet people professionally, I wouldn't give two hoots about my hairstyle, but I can't let it go when I have to 'sell' myself at work). There's also the psychological aspect. For another person, neat hair might be essential for their self-confidence, whereas my self-confidence can survive straggly hair and has no problems with an Oxfam wardrobe - mostly at home, not at work! - but is crushed by unflattering glasses. This is because they make me look like my gran, who was always moaning and acting the victim and was either disliked or pitied. Looking like her depresses me, and I can't wear contacts. So I will pay extra for glasses that don't emphasise the resemblance.

redglass_2

SandraScarlett wrote: »

Thank you for your apology Erme, but I think it just goes to show how easily the written word can be misinterpreted, and I know you have been upset in the past, by something someone has posted, that you felt was directed at you.

I'm also probably being very touchy about what people choose to spend their benefits on, because as redglass rightly says, it's theirs to spend on whatever they like. It's just this lady was saying she got so much in benefits, that there was ample for her to save £7000 for her implants.

It just seemed a tad unfair to me that there were people going to work, and paying taxes on their earnings, in order to fund her breasts.

xx

I don't really want to fund someone else's silicone, either, TBH! But I'm wary of those sensational benefit scam stories, the sort you find in the Express and the Mail. They are calculated to make people froth at the mouth and I think some of the 'claimants' are actors employed by the paper (a bit like those 'hot' housewives who used to write to men's magazines, whose letters were in fact written by the journalists). I saw a story about a group of Eastern Europeans living in a big house, all posing for the camera and boasting about the scams they were pulling. If your wits are sharp enough to pull off complicated scams while living in a foreign state and speaking a foreign language, then you're smart enough to keep quiet about it and certainly not pose for pictures. Unless, of course, the paper is paying you a hefty whack for the 'story' and you were never a claimant in the first place...

SandraScarlett

But the trouble is that some people like boasting about their achievements, benefit-wise, and think the rest of us are poor saps for not being as "bright" as they are.

And then you have many, usually OAPs, who won't claim their entitlements, like Pension Credit, because they think it's charity. Sadly, it's a funny ol' world.

xx