'Deep' & 'Meaningful' - why are some people good with money?

Chaddee

I think a lot of money issues DO come down to luck. For instance, I think people who go to private schools are incredibly lucky (I was), and people who go to university are lucky, and people who get graduate jobs are lucky. That's not to say it's not possible to be successful without these things because it's obvious that it is, but I do think they give you a head start in life, and if you walk into a 30k starting salary as one of my friends did, then you're instantly in a better position than someone starting on £6 an hour, as one of my other friends did! Once you've got your money then I agree it's (mostly) up to you how it's split up and spent, but being lucky enough to have a higher income in the first place is not something everyone is.

ZTD

ali007 wrote: »

The 1st lot spent their redundancy. The most sensible of these bought their houses.

So they *sensibly* spent their redundancy buying something they'd have to look after and repair, whereas the Social Security office would have paid them to live in those houses and repaired them for free?

Is that right?

ali007 wrote: »

Others grasped the opportunity with both hands. In addition to large pay-offs they got cracking training packages and wages help if they took a lower paid job (it was either 100% for a year then 90% or 90% then 80%). They retrained as anything from nurses to central heating engineers, and some did really well. However, many were held back by lack of entry level qualifications. And some did great for a year or two installing double glazing etc in the newly bought council houses, without thinking about what they'd do when their customers redundancy money ran out.

So others took a gamble and spent all their redunancy to set up businesses which failed taking their redundancy with it? So they ended up with less "stuff" than people who just spent it? Is that right?

ali007 wrote: »

One I know of went from being an unskilled worker in the blast furnaces to being headmaster of a senior school (and what a lesson he could teach pupils!). Lucky? (I actually heard him described as that!). Yes, in that he got the right breaks at the right time. However, what REALLY counts is that he put himself in the situation where he could take advantage of the breaks.

So *one* person you know gambled and won? So why only *one* person?

ali007 wrote: »

So, after all that I suppose I'm saying that with foresight you can help equip yourself for (some of) what life throws at you. And take advantage of the breaks along the way.

My point is that with any endeavour which has choices along the way, and an outcome is that the outcome is often blamed on the choices. The old "if you'd done it different then it wouldn't have happened" argument - the old blame the victim thing. Unless you are blessed with a crystal ball - you can only go on the information you had at the time.

It's only a certain fraction of people who can say *at the time* that what they were doing was reasonably predictably going to end in tears. I don't see why people should have approbriation heaped upon them for doing things that were not unreasonable at the time.

According to the OP - *everybody* with an unfavourable outcome brings it upon themselves.

Going back to the coal mine example. Given that you are reasonably confident that you are not going to work again, is it at all unreasonable to spend the money as quickly as possible (before inflation steals its purchasing power) so that once more you are below the Social Security's capital limits?

You may not like the idea of that, but it is one of a number of sensible options.

Kevicho

Chaddee wrote: »

I think a lot of money issues DO come down to luck. For instance, I think people who go to private schools are incredibly lucky (I was), and people who go to university are lucky, and people who get graduate jobs are lucky. That's not to say it's not possible to be successful without these things because it's obvious that it is, but I do think they give you a head start in life, and if you walk into a 30k starting salary as one of my friends did, then you're instantly in a better position than someone starting on £6 an hour, as one of my other friends did! Once you've got your money then I agree it's (mostly) up to you how it's split up and spent, but being lucky enough to have a higher income in the first place is not something everyone is.

The old saying, its not what you know, its who your know springs to mind.

The reality is though that peoples spending is usually in proportion to earnings, credit allowance is rated on a set multiple of earnings, so in that sense someone who earns 100K a year with there set limit, versus someone on 20K a year, if they had the same percentage of outgoings elsewhere could pay off there debt fully in a very similar timeframe.

Theres also the issue of living in a more prosperous area usually brings with it higher council tax, the keeping up with the joneses issue (for some people), also usually the businesses these people in require lots of networking, so golf membership, nights out, dinners and other socialising is expected to basically keep the foot in the door (again the who you know factor)

ZTD

Kevicho wrote: »

Theres also the issue of living in a more prosperous area usually brings with it higher council tax,

I wouldn't like to say that.


Kensington & Chelsea
Website: http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/
Band
A £685
B £799
C £913
D £1,027
E £1,255
F £1,484
G £1,712
H £2,054

Glasgow City Council
Band | Council Tax | Water Charge | Sewerage | Total

A £808.67 £114.48 £129.42 £1,052.57

B £943.44 £133.56 £150.99 £1,227.99

C £1,078.22 £152.64 £172.56 £1,403.42

D £1,213.00 £171.72 £194.13 £1,578.85

E £1,482.56 £209.88 £237.27 £1,929.71

F £1,752.11 £248.04 £280.41 £2,280.56

G £2,021.67 £286.20 £323.55 £2,631.42

H £2,426.00 £343.44 £388.26 £3,157.70

Mozette

If I was a product of my upbringing, I'd be very comfortably off, with a really fabulous job and a very happy life.
Which is why I'm on DFW...
I'm the product of being a bit of an idiot, and taking life at face value. Sometimes decisions pay off, sometimes they go wrong beyond all expectation.
Still, if you have a reliable crystal ball I'm sure it all goes perfectly and of course you'll never make a mistake.
Though I always found perfection to be boring and impossible to put up with.

ZTD

Mozette wrote: »

Though I always found perfection to be boring and impossible to put up with.

So *THAT'S* where I'm going wrong...

Kevicho

ZTD wrote: »

I wouldn't like to say that.


Kensington & Chelsea
Website: http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/
Band
A £685
B £799
C £913
D £1,027
E £1,255
F £1,484
G £1,712
H £2,054

Glasgow City Council
Band | Council Tax | Water Charge | Sewerage | Total

A £808.67 £114.48 £129.42 £1,052.57

B £943.44 £133.56 £150.99 £1,227.99

C £1,078.22 £152.64 £172.56 £1,403.42

D £1,213.00 £171.72 £194.13 £1,578.85

E £1,482.56 £209.88 £237.27 £1,929.71

F £1,752.11 £248.04 £280.41 £2,280.56

G £2,021.67 £286.20 £323.55 £2,631.42

H £2,426.00 £343.44 £388.26 £3,157.70

Wow, i get the feeling more stuff ive been lied to about lol

where i live

898.74
1048.52
1198.32
1348.10
1647.68
1947.25
2246.84
2696.21

I think this goes to show that poorer people are being kept down by council tax, id be interested to quiz a politician about this, if i can get them away from the trough long enough

115K

busydaffodil1 wrote: »

The one word that describes my constant obsession with owing everyone nothing is SECURITY.
I'll not go into details but as a child I was abused by 1 of the 2 people in a childs life that are suppose to love you the most. The outcome for me was that I felt constantly insecure. In my adult life this insecurity lead me to set up my own home and pay off the mortgage within 6 years. No one could take my home off me then! It was my security.
Even though I am married, I am 100% financially independant, own no money to anyone and I do not allow people to do anything for me for free.
My employment has been engineered to obtain maximum security too. I am self employed and have been since 18 yrs old. No-one can make me unemployed now, only myself.

That is brilliant busydaffodil1, I'm really glad you have achieved that for yourself after a bad start in life.

ZTD

Kevicho wrote: »

Wow, i get the feeling more stuff ive been lied to about lol

There's loads of stuff...

Kevicho wrote: »

I think this goes to show that poorer people are being kept down by council tax,

And other kinds of tax - and indeed benefit. For your entertainment, other areas to go poking around in are:

• Marginal rates of benefit
• UK resident, but non-domiciled.

There's others, but they're the biggest laughs.

Kevicho wrote: »

id be interested to quiz a politician about this, if i can get them away from the trough long enough

:rotfl: As if. Even if you could - do you think you wouldn't be lied to again?

gallygirl

ZTD wrote: »

So they *sensibly* spent their redundancy buying something they'd have to look after and repair, whereas the Social Security office would have paid them to live in those houses and repaired them for free?

Is that right?

But now they have no rent/mortgage to pay in their retirement. Whereas the ones who didn't are in poorly maintained council houses, and paying rent out of their pensions.

So others took a gamble and spent all their redunancy to set up businesses which failed taking their redundancy with it? So they ended up with less "stuff" than people who just spent it? Is that right?

Didn't necessarily fail - but with a bit of foresight could maybe have got additional skills (e.g. plastering as well as carpenter) so they could have widened their options.


So *one* person you know gambled and won? So why only *one* person?
I didn't say only 1 person gambled & won - I gave 1 specific example. I mentioned nurses & central heating engineers as well, I know them personally. I cited the headmaster because I felt he was such a great example to his pupils.


My point is that with any endeavour which has choices along the way, and an outcome is that the outcome is often blamed on the choices. The old "if you'd done it different then it wouldn't have happened" argument - the old blame the victim thing. Unless you are blessed with a crystal ball - you can only go on the information you had at the time. That's my point - they all had the same information at the time!!! Doing it differently might not stop it happening - but it can change the outcome.

It's only a certain fraction of people who can say *at the time* that what they were doing was reasonably predictably going to end in tears. I don't see why people should have approbriation heaped upon them for doing things that were not unreasonable at the time.

Sorry, but if I would have thought that putting a £1000 cheque behind a bar at a time of mass unemployment was unreasonable even at the time

According to the OP - *everybody* with an unfavourable outcome brings it upon themselves. I said I agreed with some of what the OP said. That's the bit I didn't agree with!

Going back to the coal mine example. Given that you are reasonably confident that you are not going to work again, is it at all unreasonable to spend the money as quickly as possible (before inflation steals its purchasing power) so that once more you are below the Social Security's capital limits?

The point I was making was that they could take steps so that they COULD work again!

You may not like the idea of that, but it is one of a number of sensible options.

What about personal responsibility? I don't think spending your money so that the state has to support you and your family is a sensible option.

All I was trying to do was point out how people reacted to the same situation - and those that did best didn't just fall on their feet. Of course it can all go t*ts up - but the more resources you have to fall back on the better surely?

Just wish I'd learnt that lesson myself a bit earlier :rolleyes:.