Preparedness for when

Frugalsod

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

There are better things to do with life than go in for all that malarkey at the best of times, just to get some more consumer goods....

Yes but what will you remember? "This scar is from the 2013 Primark sale, and this knife wound is from when I got that bread maker from Dixons! You should have seen the mess that he was in after I hit him with a discounted waffle iron which I gave to your sister for Christmas."

Personally I would rather do it all online. I can try and get cash back and then double check that the prices offered are actually a good deal. The last thing you want to do is panic buy something that is not really that cheap. Then just wait for it all to be delivered. So much less trouble. :beer:

Frugalsod

Apparently even rodents have got the Black Friday Bug.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11263779/Rat-causes-shopper-stampede-in-Debenhams-store.html

Frugalsod

Doveling wrote: »

Child benefit was intended for mothers whose husbands didn't give them any money, a safety net for women and children. This still happens and even in well-off families. Control and financial abuse, the little safety net has been taken away.

I agree. it is very short sighted. Personally if the government are concerned about rich people getting it then simply tax them more. Universal benefits have one significant advantage in that they are cheap to operate. Means testing makes it so much more inefficient, though from an ideological party that is against the state doing anything that is probably not a downside from their perspective and it makes abolishing it only a matter of time.

maryb

I always understood universal benefits such as child benefit to be a recognition of the fact that we ARE all in it together to some extent. When you are bringing up the next generation you are doing something socially useful and it is a recognition of that. To deny it to some is to deny the value of what they are doing - you are just a cash cow, pay your taxes and be grateful. When all is said and done it is just tinkering with the allocation of tax revenue but it is a much more inclusive way of doing it. And cheap to administer. So it worked for years when the country was prosperous and I think it did help to bind us all together.

And giving it to the mother killed two birds with one stone - gave her some independent money not under the control of a potentially !!!!less husband and at the same time reinforced the message that bringing up children is socially valuable.

Frugalsod

maryb wrote: »

I always understood universal benefits such as child benefit to be a recognition of the fact that we ARE all in it together to some extent. When you are bringing up the next generation you are doing something socially useful and it is a recognition of that. To deny it to some is to deny the value of what they are doing - you are just a cash cow, pay your taxes and be grateful. When all is said and done it is just tinkering with the allocation of tax revenue but it is a much more inclusive way of doing it. And cheap to administer. So it worked for years when the country was prosperous and I think it did help to bind us all together.

And giving it to the mother killed two birds with one stone - gave her some independent money not under the control of a potentially !!!!less husband and at the same time reinforced the message that bringing up children is socially valuable.

When I was in Sweden I discovered the reasons for their welfare system. During the last half of the 19th century it was very common for the men to go working a long way from home and they even got paid in alcohol, which the men happily drank instead of worrying about their family. So there were many families who starved because of this. So the Swedish State created their own payments system because of this. It is also why they control alcohol sales so tightly there.

Overall I have no problems with millionaires getting child benefit for each of their children no matter how rich they are. They are certainly paying for it via their taxes.

Perplexed_Pineapple

Evening all. A couple of thoughts.

GreyQueen wrote: »

Yeah, and this is artificially-whipped-up hysteria over toys and trinkets. Imagine if bellies were empty and people were frightened about their very survival. You really don't want to have any kind of plan to shop when a panic is at full throttle. You don't want to be anywhere near a store in a crisis, or queuing outside a bank when there is a run on.

I think it would be much, much worse than we saw on Black Friday if there was a serious survival threats. OK there were fights, but if there were an emergency food shortage, we would see stores raided by gangs, and weapons would appear quickly. It would probably be very dangerous to be competing for vital supplies at such a time. Much better to be prepared and keep your head down until the dust settles.

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

I would expect to see him in Nazi uniform :mad:

Wow, Godwin in 27798 posts. That might be a record :rotfl:

maryb

I didn't think f e c k less would fall foul of the rude word filter!

Frugalsod

maryb wrote: »

I didn't think f e c k less would fall foul of the rude word filter!

It probably thought that you did not mean to put that e in there. Deliberately misspelling to bypass the rude word filter.

SpikyHedgehog

Mojoworking wrote: »

That was ohs sister. His mum has had her children and made it clear she wouldn't be helping. My mum had passed away so there weren't really any other choices.

I think weve destroyed families as there is no ordinary jobs any more like factorys or industry and its lots of retail on disgraceful terms and conditions with stupid shifts as we need to be able to access everything 24 hours a day. There just isn't time to do everything and actually that everything isn't actually important but we're running so fast to keep up I'm not sure what it is I'm aiming to achieve sometimes. It takes a lot not to get sucked in.

I went on maternity leave in 1995 to have DS1 and the idea was that I'd return to work and Alcoholic Boyfriend (before I realised about the alcoholism) would look after DS1 so I could go back to work as AB didn't work. Instead I left him and moved back in with my parents...

I started working in the preschool DS1 went to, thus letting me only work in term time so I was there for DS1, and that worked well for us.

I didn't want to go back to work after I had DS2 though, until he was old enough to go to preschool, but Errant Husband pushed me into going back to work so we could afford such necessary items as a large flatscreen tv and holidays abroad. So, DS2 had to go to a childminder, as EH did 12 hr shifts working days & nights. Then, because I was 'always' (sometimes) at work when he was off work, he ended up having an affair and leaving us. It therefore cost us a lot more as a family with me working than if I'd been at home.

Doveling, I know several grandparents who still work. My parents both work still - mum has booked a day's holiday to be able to help me or baby sis when our usual childcare has had a planned absence, but can't do more than that.

DS1 is talking about us all still living together when he is married (to a currently non-existent GF , who could have other ideas about this) as I'll then be able to help with grandchildren.

Doveling wrote: »

Child benefit was intended for mothers whose husbands didn't give them any money, a safety net for women and children. This still happens and even in well-off families. Control and financial abuse, the little safety net has been taken away.

Not a well off family as the only money that was coming in was the child benefit and income support, but this was me and the Alcoholic Boyfriend. The income support had to be in his name as he was the one able to work, so he drank it. Without CB, DS1 and I would have starved. As it was, if I'd not got a supply of terry nappies from car boot sales before I went on mat leave, I don't know how I'd have managed.

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

My parents were cremated and we had their ashes interred at the cemetary, there is a special plot for cremations so we can still visit their grave and it has a headstone. Maybe you could look in to that?

I love the idea of a woodland burial, but agree that costs are prohibative to many of us

It's also the distance with woodland burials - the nearest one to us is about 60 miles away, whereas the cemetery closest to us with space in it is 3 miles away - 9 minutes by car or 1hr 17 minutes according to g00gle maps. So it's not 'just' the cost of the actual burial, it would be the cost of people getting to the site for the burial and being able to go there afterwards.

I had a look at the cemeteries info on the borough council's website, and they have a variety of options there, which I'd not thought about at all, so that's very helpful, thank you!

siegemode

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

...and on topics re health.

I didn't know that::eek:

http://action.sumofus.org/a/weapons-NHS/?sub=tw

so just when and where did that get reported in the newspapers then?:cool:

Here's more if that concerns you,

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/18/lockheed-martin-targeted-census-protesters

and

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/patriot-act-can-obtain-data-in-europe-researchers-say/

Privacy is a thing of the past:(