MSE News: Spending less at Christmas meant more enjoyment, MSE poll finds 4 January 2013 at 6:07PM in Special occasions & other celebrations 11 replies 1.9K views

Former_MSE_Helen

"Those who cut back had a better time over Christmas than those who spent more than usual..."

Read the full story:

Spending less at Christmas meant more enjoyment, MSE poll finds

jobdone1

Most of my pay is tax, national insurance, council tax, v.a.t, fuel duty, road tax,insurance premium tax, interest on mortgage and then a couple of quid for me how though full.

Caddyman

My Wife and I spend very little at Christmas anyway. Ten years ago, I told everyone in my circle of family and friends that I would no longer buy Christmas presents for any of them, with the exception of my Wife. I remember the disbelief that flashed across people's faces followed by the usual round of comments that 'Christmas is the time for giving'. It made me realise just how materialistic people had become. My Wife only buys something for her Mum and Dad (I don't buy for mine!) and we treat them to Christmas dinner. The result has been financially very rewarding for us both! We buy each other one or two nice things and make sure that we have plenty of food on the table. It's fantastic to come out the other side of Christmas with absolutely zero debt. Not being under any pressure to spend anything on others because it is considered the norm, is really quite wonderful, especially when I hear my neighbours woes of how much debt they got themselves into just trying to please others.

Abatement

completely misleading use of those statistics. what's the point?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Why would you want to be a cheapskate at Christmas?

More to the point, see "paradox of thrift" for why individual acts of selfish scrimping will make us all poorer in the end..... Even those who scrimp.

Consumerist

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why would you want to be a cheapskate at Christmas?

Yes. Let's all pile the cost of Christmas festivities on to the plastic. The bankers will get richer while we get poorer. So we can't spend as much to make the retailers richer as well, so they cut jobs . . . blah, blah, blah. :eek:

Someone please spare us from the preachers of doom.

Happy New (hopefully debt-free) Year to everyone.

Frozenace

I completely agree with the Consumerist.

The paradox of thrift only seems to apply if you don't put that purchase on credit.

There was an article on a German site that said that saving up for something big actually has a more psychologically gratifying effect than the purchase itself.

nainoo

I don't believe in banning Christmas presents but I believe in spending less and within your means

Its a healthy balance between splashing out on some extra treats and enjoying the simple things like spending TIME together as a family without over indulgence or the pressure of worrying about not even being able to afford the basics

We had a simple Christmas this year and enjoyed it more as it brought home to us the value of FAMILY as we nearly didn't get to spend it together at all and all the money or presents in the world would never have made up for that!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Frozenace wrote: »

The paradox of thrift only seems to apply if you don't put that purchase on credit.

The paradox of thrift applies either way.

The important issue is a reduction in demand due to a decrease in consumer spending. Whether that reduction in spending is from an increase in savings or an decrease in debt is not relevant. Either way, we all ultimately end up poorer as a result.

The paradox of thrift states that if everyone tries to save more money during times of economic recession, then demand will fall, unemployment will rise, and total savings in the population will reduce because of the decrease in consumption, employment and economic growth.

The paradox is that total savings will fall despite individual savers attempting to increase their savings, as the decrease in economic activity makes us all poorer in the end.

As with many things in life, the selfishness of individuals can lead to short term gain for them, but will then eventually lead to long term pain for everyone including them.

So while nobody is suggesting individuals should take on reckless or unmanageable levels of debt, the concept of encouraging everyone to decrease spending is fundamentally flawed.

If everyone did it, we'd all get poorer as a result.

tara747

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The paradox of thrift applies either way.

The important issue is a reduction in demand due to a decrease in consumer spending. Whether that reduction in spending is from an increase in savings or an decrease in debt is not relevant. Either way, we all ultimately end up poorer as a result.

The paradox of thrift states that if everyone tries to save more money during times of economic recession, then demand will fall, unemployment will rise, and total savings in the population will reduce because of the decrease in consumption, employment and economic growth.

The paradox is that total savings will fall despite individual savers attempting to increase their savings, as the decrease in economic activity makes us all poorer in the end.

As with many things in life, the selfishness of individuals can lead to short term gain for them, but will then eventually lead to long term pain for everyone including them.

So while nobody is suggesting individuals should take on reckless or unmanageable levels of debt, the concept of encouraging everyone to decrease spending is fundamentally flawed.

If everyone did it, we'd all get poorer as a result.

Oh, I do apologise for my utter selfishness in saving my hard-earned, rather than spending it all on tat.

Where shall I go to hand over my savings and atone for my sins?

Consumerist

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

. . . So while nobody is suggesting individuals should take on reckless or unmanageable levels of debt, the concept of encouraging everyone to decrease spending is fundamentally flawed. If everyone did it, we'd all get poorer as a result.

Your earlier question was: "Why would you want to be a cheapskate at Christmas?"

The answer for many (not everyone) is: Because I can't afford it.

You seemed to be suggesting that people who cannot afford to spend lots on Christmas should recklessly go out and spend anyway.