Can Mary have 3 cakes, eat them and expect a fourth?

Crashy_Time

kabayiri wrote: »

"Marie" (who is growing on me) needs to spend a little less on her 2 long haul holidays a year, to create this cash slush fund she needs so that Joe can move on from Lapland to Lap dancer land.

From where she lives, holidays in Aberdeen are definitely long haul if you choose National Express. Think 'thrifty and slow'. Whilst in Aberdeen she can probably sniff out a couple of property bargains arising from displaced oil workers needing to sell.

She could also grab some quick investment advice from Hamish while she is up there.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

I'd love to retire at 55. Fair play to her for her investments.

I don't know why this article is so upsetting. She's one person in a country of sixty million and she's hardly an extreme case. She's thinking about her priorities -as she should- and has asked for advice. What's the big deal?

Even without savings, she is unlikely to need a food bank any time soon. Yes she should have savings, but she's in a safe job. It is highly unlikely that she will lose everything tomorrow. And say she did need £10k in a hurry, she's got a secure job so should be able to borrow at a decent rate, but may have to forego a couple of expensive holidays.

Agree. I don't get what anyone's problem is. This is a woman with a modestly well paid job who has striven to make her family financially secure. The next step for her was to gain some good financial advice which she has done at the price of her privacy rather than paying cash.

Good on her I say.

I do wonder whether the fact that she's a woman has changed views....

mwpt

lisyloo wrote: »

I always thought that btl mortgages were based on business (property) income whereas residential mortgages are based on personal income ???

Well yes, but I don't think this is a desirable situation. I await cellmish to tell me how wrong I am. Stoke on Trent.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

I do wonder whether the fact that she's a woman has changed views....

I'd guess you are the first one to have thought of her gender to be honest.

Trying to turn it into a gender / sexism issue is poor form IMO.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd guess you are the first one to have thought of her gender to be honest.

Trying to turn it into a gender / sexism issue is poor form IMO.

There is a growing amount of evidence to show that people, both men and women, tend to react negatively to women with independent wealth.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

There is a growing amount of evidence to show that people, both men and women, tend to react negatively to women with independent wealth.

And there is a growing amount of evidence that you will resort to the "they must be sexist" and "they must be racist" comments on threads where you find yourself in the minority view.

This, for me was about the advice and content of that article. I think I can speak for the majority and state that the gender of the person never even entered our thoughts.

I've said the very same thing regarding Property118 threads (which it seems are by the majority, male) as I have about this BTL issue.

To therefore be accused of being sexist, along with so many others on this thread is pretty annoying. It may win the internet - but that's about all it achieves.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And there is a growing amount of evidence that you will resort to the "they must be sexist" and "they must be racist" comments on threads where you find yourself in the minority view.

This, for me was about the advice and content of that article. I think I can speak for the majority and state that the gender of the person never even entered our thoughts.

I've said the very same thing regarding Property118 threads (which it seems are by the majority, male) as I have about this BTL issue.

To therefore be accused of being sexist, along with so many others on this thread is pretty annoying. It may win the internet - but that's about all it achieves.

I didn't accuse you of being sexist. You are, once again, being massively oversensitive.

There are many examples of the disadvantages, many unconscious but increasingly done consciously, women face in the modern economy. For example:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b89e16da-b96c-11e5-b151-8e15c9a029fb.html?ftcamp=crm/email//nbe/ArtsLeisure/product

oes a dollar in my pocket buy more than a dollar in my wife’s? It seems so, according to a report released just before Christmas by New York City’s Department of Consumer Affairs, which was much covered in the US media. The DCA report found that men often paid less for clothes and items such as razor blades and shampoo. Even boys’ toys are cheaper than those aimed at girls. The report led with a striking example from a department store website: while a red “My 1st Scooter Sport” costs $24.99, a pink “My 1st Scooter Girls Sparkle” is twice as much. Beneath the paint job, the products appear to be identical — surely glitter cannot be that expensive? The sparkly scooter was sold at an astonishing mark-up but it’s not a typical case. The DCA report looked at 22 bikes and scooters, finding that on average the product aimed at girls or women cost 6 per cent more. Across 800 products, the DCA found that while men sometimes paid more than women, on average women faced prices that were 7 per cent higher. Relative to profit margins this is still a large price difference but it’s a long way shy of 100 per cent.

What should we make of this? One response is that perhaps the price gap isn’t really there or at least not in any systematic way. Perhaps the DCA unwittingly cherry-picked examples. (Sports cars and hi-fi systems were not included.) Whether or not systematic gender-based pricing is widespread, it will always be easy to find examples that look sexist.

Graham_Devon

I'm not being overly sensitve - just taking you to task on your statement. Afterall, these statements of "sexist, racists, xenophobe" are pumped out all over the place.

So if you werent accusing me as the thread starter, who were you accusing of gender bias changing their views on this thread?

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not being overly sensitve - just taking you to task on your statement. Afterall, these statements of "sexist, racists, xenophobe" are pumped out all over the place.

So if you werent accusing me as the thread starter, who were you accusing of gender bias changing their views on this thread?

Everyone involved in the conversation being critical of this woman including you.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Everyone involved in the conversation being critical of this woman including you.

Oh OK - well that's confusing.....

Generali wrote: »

I didn't accuse you of being sexist.

Anyway, fair do's, be huge amounts of sexism going on if we can't ever be critical of anything any women does.

I do find this whole stance thoroughly bizzare to be honest with you as it leaves us in a position where we can either fully support someone, or be accused of being sexist....the world doesn't work like that. But I'll leave it at that.