Why are some people really tight with their money?

suki1964

i_was_taught_2b_cautious wrote: »

Some interesting responses. I have read all of them, and everyone has different reasons in how they value money, and I can say I was not assuming people are tight.
I know someone has there mortgage paid off, 500k in the bank, and still comes across as being financially strained, but have new cars every year, 3 holidays a year, but in OTHER areas are very tight.

E.g If someone close genuinely needed help they would make an excuse about not having any money.

It was a very simple questions and everyone has responded in different ways.

Thanks all

Hmmmm, we have our mortgage paid, we have money in the bank, we have new flash cars every couple of years

But we are still skint :rotfl:

Old age doesn't come cheap. Nor do children and grandchildren

That's where we put our money

Mind I guess we could stop squirrelling it all away, flash the cash more and then live our old ages out claiming benefits

Pollycat

suki1964 wrote: »

Hmmmm, we have our mortgage paid, we have money in the bank, we have new flash cars every couple of years

But we are still skint :rotfl:

Old age doesn't come cheap. Nor do children and grandchildren

That's where we put our money

Mind I guess we could stop squirrelling it all away, flash the cash more and then live our old ages out claiming benefits

I guess it depends on your definition of skint.

Some people might say they are skint because they have no car, no savings and only £50 to last them for the 3 weeks until payday.

DUKE

So they can save & leave it to their ungrateful kids in their will, or just stash it in the bank for God knows what reason.

Person_one

suki1964 wrote: »

Hmmmm, we have our mortgage paid, we have money in the bank, we have new flash cars every couple of years

But we are still skint :rotfl:

Old age doesn't come cheap. Nor do children and grandchildren

That's where we put our money

Mind I guess we could stop squirrelling it all away, flash the cash more and then live our old ages out claiming benefits

Differing definitions of 'skint' must be a factor here too. Being in a position to get new cars every few years and give gifts to family members certainly doesn't tally with my idea of what it means.

What you're describing sounds more like 'well off but careful'.

Spendless

Feral_Moon wrote: »

What would you do if a friend invited you out for dinner and offered to pay for the food if you covered the cost of drinks/gratuity (assuming it was a relatively even split of course) and then when the bill arrives they produce vouchers to cover their part instead of cash?

Would you accept this, as you're not paying anything more than you'd originally planned to or would you expect your friend to cover your food bill with their vouchers but then to also split the drinks/gratuity with you?

I've just read your original post. If a friend invited me out for dinner and proposed that, I'd have said 'No as I have vouchers for there that we can use' and split the bill accordingly once the discount had been taken off.

If I didn't want to share my vouchers with a friend, I would have either kept my mouth shut about having them and paid in cash for my part of the bill, or if this 'rankled' a bit ie I was thinking 'I could be eating here loads cheaper if I'd been prepared to use my vouchers', I'd have suggested an alternative venue where my vouchers couldn't be used.

suki1964

Person_one wrote: »

Differing definitions of 'skint' must be a factor here too. Being in a position to get new cars every few years and give gifts to family members certainly doesn't tally with my idea of what it means.

What you're describing sounds more like 'well off but careful'.

Not well off, but yes deifinately careful

Same as the op,s friend I would hazard


We are no means tight, but as we have grown older priorities have changed. We no longer buy gifts or cards for family and friends nor each other. We have all we need and our wants are not achievable at this time ( we want to travel but are tied at present) We do eat out now and then, but lunchtime or the tea time special ( two courses and a glass of wine £10) And I admit that now my income has been cut again I'm not so free and easy about going out with the girls as I once was. I'm upfront and say I can't afford it. I guess some people think I can because we are obviously not on the breadline but that's up to them

Our retirement looms and needs to be paid for and we aren't relying on the government to fund that or tell us when it will be.

tea_lover

Feral_Moon wrote: »

Thanks for your response. It wouldn't bother me either but I was recently in this very situation whereby I was the one using vouchers. The person I was lunching with was rather annoyed that I'd effectively be receiving a "free lunch" whereas they were "paying" for theirs with cash and actually expected me to split the rest of the bill :eek:

I was quite astounded as I'd covered £40 of the cost of the meal with the vouchers leaving them just £25 to pay, much less than the value of food/drink they'd actually consumed!

I was reluctantly forced into leaving a £10 cash tip as a result just to make them feel I'd actually contributed something :mad:

That seems incredibly tight (and downright rude) to me. You knew in advance you had vouchers for the food, but still convinced your friend to cover the whole cost of the drinks. Why on earth wouldn't you split the cost of what was left, so you all benefit? If someone pulled a stunt like that on me I certainly wouldn't ever be dining with them again.

Feral_Moon

tea_lover wrote: »

That seems incredibly tight (and downright rude) to me. You knew in advance you had vouchers for the food, but still convinced your friend to cover the whole cost of the drinks. Why on earth wouldn't you split the cost of what was left, so you all benefit? If someone pulled a stunt like that on me I certainly wouldn't ever be dining with them again.

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the issue here?

If I go out for a meal then I usually have a rough idea of how much I want to spend and will choose from the menu accordingly. At the end of that meal I'll put on the table enough cash to cover my cost.

If someone else were to put in a mix of cash and vouchers then fine, I wouldn't bat an eyelid. If someone else was paying by card and asked for the cash to be given to them, then again, absolutely fine. At the end of the day I've paid exactly what I budgeted for my meal. I don't care what other methods people use to pay. And they shouldn't worry how I choose to pay.

Most chain restaurants are way over priced for the food they serve and I would never eat in one without some form of discount voucher. But because I choose to save my Clubcard vouchers to pay for meals out, why should I then be made to feel guilty by not paying for everyone else's meals too?

ETA: I have a finite number of vouchers left which will probably afford me a dozen or so meals out. If I had to start sharing them and paying for other people then that would drastically reduce my opportunities to eat out and enjoy social occasions I wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. Is this fair?

Reckless_Saving

Tightness is just a perception, having an expensive house and/or car doesn't automatically award you the tightness title, the assumption that you're loaded and happily stand any occasion going is not right.

If someone is regularly in a round of drinks but never stands their turn then just privately make them aware and let them know it's ok to exclude themselves from rounds and get their own drinks. Personally I never join rounds or drinks kitties, I'm a lightweight, happy with my two drinks for the night, for every drink I have the group go through three.

I've learn't the hard way, in the early part of my working life went out with work for meals where the bill would be split, I wouldn't order as much food/drink but was too timid to pipe up that I didn't have as much as others, was abit resentful at subbing others enjoyments in this way and money I couldn't really afford to spent. These days my wage is a little higher and I eat a little more that it's not jarring on me as much but I do now pipe up for others now so the bill is split that those who haven't had as much pay less than those who've had loads of alcohol. I'm now more inclined to say no to things and not feel bad, at work we have lots of leaving collections and charity drives (collections/raffles/sponsor event etc..) there is just too much coming round so I've set my self some rules, leaving collections are easy - do I know the person. Charity - yes to dress down collections and the odd raffle, no to sponsor events where you have to donate online and there seems to be a competition for who donates the most (why is £25 the norm on these sites). I'm happy to give loose change, anything higher I do privately outside of the event. At first I thought I was the only one to do this giving myself the tightness title but turns out everyone does it this way.

Anyway we're all money savers here, do we all not get unfairly tagged in various guises like tight, loaded etc... I recently chatted with a colleague who's was sorting out monthly payments for their new car, their perception was I could just go out and buy a car, we discussed it where I pointed out I was in the same position as them just doing it in a different way. I don't just have money available and save for what I want then buy it where as they buy it first then save to pay off later.

At the end of the day we all have the same opportunities and it's just how we figure out what's best for us - sadly we maybe tagged along the way :money:

tea_lover

Feral_Moon wrote: »

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the issue here?

It's the pre-arranging part that would annoy me.

If I've understood this correctly (and apologies if I haven't) - you and a friend arrange a meal out. You know you have vouchers for the restaurant, so agree to cover the cost of the food. You ask your friend to cover drinks and extras.

Something about that is just off, imo.