We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
'Deep' & 'Meaningful' - why are some people good with money?
Comments
-
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.
But they have maintenance and other liabilties.Whereas the ones who didn't are in poorly maintained council houses, and paying rent out of their pensions.
No. That's what Social Security is for. They have a home, free for life. No maintenance, no liabilities.ZTD wrote: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.
Which would then have taken work from the plasterers, leaving the community as a whole no better off.ZTD wrote: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.
The reason there is only a small number of winners is that in any competative activity, there is only a limited number of first-places.ZTD wrote: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!!!
But they are different people, with differing skills, so by necessity they react to the same information in different ways. If there's a pot of gold 6'8" off the ground, I react differently from you, because I can reach that high.Doing it differently might not stop it happening - but it can change the outcome.
This has "hindsight" written through it like a stick of blackpool rock. "If you'd done it different, it would have been different." For every set of people who do identical things, there are winners and losers. Sometimes spectacularly so.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
So you think that people should start up their own business during times of mass unemployment? Is that not the worst of times?ZTD wrote: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!
Again that "COULD" word. Take a gamble - slap down that redundancy money and roll that dice. People made decisions, and it is as unfair to blame them for spending the money knowing they were secure as to blame people for *not* betting on "Frolicking Filly" at the 3:30 at Kempton Park. "Someone won a fortune you know..."
The people who spent the money, spent it knowing they had security.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.
Of course it is. I know someone who gets £400 per week off the state. Left school at 16 and is basically unskilled. Where is he going to earn that kind of money working? Bringing is £400 pw to his family is personally responsible.
The Social Security system lays wastes to generations. But lay the blame at the door of the system, not at the people who follow the rules it lays down. Villify the system - not the people.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?
Ceteris paribus - this is true. But it's never certeris paribus is it? Have more than £16,000? Kiss goodbye to the Social including dentistry, getting into places cheap etc, etc. Suddenly more resources turned out to be a burden.Just wish I'd learnt that lesson myself a bit earlier :rolleyes:.
You can't predict the future with accuracy, so you're always going to be right, and always going to be wrong."Follow the money!" - Deepthroat (AKA William Mark Felt Sr - Associate Director of the FBI)
"We were born and raised in a summer haze." Adele 'Someone like you.'
"Blowing your mind, 'cause you know what you'll find, when you're looking for things in the sky." OMD 'Julia's Song'0 -
But they have maintenance and other liabilties.
Not as much as £80 a week rent though?
No. That's what Social Security is for. They have a home, free for life. No maintenance, no liabilities.
They don't get Social Security as pensions are 'too high'.
Which would then have taken work from the plasterers, leaving the community as a whole no better off.
Possibly, but we're talking about individuals here.
The reason there is only a small number of winners is that in any competative activity, there is only a limited number of first-places.
Which you won't get if not in the race. Or even acknowledge there is a race going on.
But they are different people, with differing skills, so by necessity they react to the same information in different ways. If there's a pot of gold 6'8" off the ground, I react differently from you, because I can reach that high.
True, not everyone can become an IT specialist or teacher. But p*ss*ng your redundancy up against a wall isn't exactly stretching yourself.
This has "hindsight" written through it like a stick of blackpool rock. "If you'd done it different, it would have been different." For every set of people who do identical things, there are winners and losers. Sometimes spectacularly so.
True. But how many spectacular winners are there who sit there doing nothing all day?
So you think that people should start up their own business during times of mass unemployment? Is that not the worst of times?
No, not generally I don't. However, these people did have a 2 yr guarantee to have their wages made up, and a lot more practical help then is generally advisable, so in this instance yes.
Again that "COULD" word. Take a gamble - slap down that redundancy money and roll that dice. People made decisions, and it is as unfair to blame them for spending the money knowing they were secure as to blame people for *not* betting on "Frolicking Filly" at the 3:30 at Kempton Park. "Someone won a fortune you know..."
The people who spent the money, spent it knowing they had security.
Of course it is. I know someone who gets £400 per week off the state. Left school at 16 and is basically unskilled. Where is he going to earn that kind of money working? Bringing is £400 pw to his family is personally responsible.
The Social Security system lays wastes to generations. But lay the blame at the door of the system, not at the people who follow the rules it lays down. Villify the system - not the people.
I don't think planning to live of the state by doing nothing to improve your chances of getting a job is responsible (before you all start shouting at me, I'm well aware it isn't practical/possible with the current welfare system, I'm talking about specific communities who had a lot of financial and practical help available at the time). IMHO a lot of problems were caused by a generation of children growing up in a household where they had no working role models, or at least saw their parents trying to get a job. As a parent I think it's a grossly irresponsible to set that kind of example. I was worse off working when my children were younger but did it because I had a sense of social responsibility I wanted to pass on my children.
Ceteris paribus - this is true. But it's never certeris paribus is it? Have more than £16,000? Kiss goodbye to the Social including dentistry, getting into places cheap etc, etc. Suddenly more resources turned out to be a burden.
As opposed to being a burden on the state (:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: OMG I'll shut up now. I sound like Maggie T!!!!!!)
You can't predict the future with accuracy, so you're always going to be right, and always going to be wrong.
'so you're always going to be right' - duh, I'm a woman so obviously
.
Seriously, I was closely involved in the redundancies and fascinated by why people in the same situation made the choices they did.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort
Mortgage Balance = £0
"Do what others won't early in life so you can do what others can't later in life"0 -
PS - the women I find attractyibe are those that play hard to get (I mean really play, not just pretend for a couple of weeks)!
This kind of "playing" usually means they're not interested....
I find some of your comments quite disturbing, you seem to see things purely in black and white and imply that everything that happens to a person is a result of some kind of choice they made, good or bad. While I agree that there are good and bad choices to be made in life, you are completely eliminating the possibility of chance and circumstance as a cause of the financial messes people can end up in.
I firmly agree with Rog - it doesn't matter how well you set yourself up financially, nobody can predict what's around the corner. A bad accident, a mental illness, a death in the family, a redundancy can all eat up large piles of savings very, very quickly. What I'm saying is that you can plan all you like and make wise financial choices - there will always be a set of circumstances that you can't control, that can turn the tables very quickly.
I remember one story on this board that illustrates this nicely. The guy seemed fairly smart financially, had savings that were a lot higher than most people have when he lost his job. I can't remember exactly what it was now, I think he was some kind of graphic designer. It was a high-paying, qualified job anyway. For the first few months he was applying for positions of a similar level but nobody was hiring. He then lowered his sights and went for more junior positions, but again nobody hired him. After more than a year of redundancy things were getting desperate and he was applying for anything at all, shelf-stacking jobs, anything to get some cash coming in. But he was considered over-qualified and couldn't get work.
So he eventually ended up in debt and came to this board for help to turn things around (which is a pretty good choice in my opinion!) He didn't make any bad choices here, he did everything he could to get himself into a good financial position and when he lost the job, he tried everything he could to get another one. This was circumstances, not bad choices.
I appreciate you are trying to start a discussion on circumstance vs. choice, but the way you put your views across is very judgmental and condescending towards those on this board who are here purely because of circumstance. And there are a lot of them. I was surprised when I started reading these stories, at the number of people who are here because of circumstance (redundancy, illness etc) and not frivolous spending. They come here for help and advice, not for judgment on their "choices" in life.
You can have the best financial plans you like, you never know what curveball is coming round the corner. That's the way life works.0 -
ZTD wrote:No. That's what Social Security is for. They have a home, free for life. No maintenance, no liabilities.
They don't get Social Security as pensions are 'too high'.
A lot of people like that do get Social Security (was MIG, now Pension Credits). And it pays housing benefit. Of course what that is for the individual depends on circumstances, but notice the "savings" bit...ZTD wrote:Which would then have taken work from the plasterers, leaving the community as a whole no better off.
Possibly, but we're talking about individuals here.
Most analysis fails at that point. You've got to take into account the external aspects. As tempting and lovely as uncomplicating as it sounds - ceteris paribus does not exist in any meaningful fashion in the real world.ZTD wrote:The reason there is only a small number of winners is that in any competative activity, there is only a limited number of first-places.
Which you won't get if not in the race. Or even acknowledge there is a race going on.
But you also won't come last either. And given that there is a price to enter, it is certainly possible that those that enter and do well end up poorer than those that didn't enter at all.True, not everyone can become an IT specialist or teacher. But p*ss*ng your redundancy up against a wall isn't exactly stretching yourself.
I would agree. But there are people for whom that was the best possible outcome.ZTD wrote:This has "hindsight" written through it like a stick of blackpool rock. "If you'd done it different, it would have been different." For every set of people who do identical things, there are winners and losers. Sometimes spectacularly so.
True. But how many spectacular winners are there who sit there doing nothing all day?
Very few, but the same also applies to spectacular losers.I don't think planning to live of the state by doing nothing to improve your chances of getting a job is responsible
It is responsible as an individual. For the country as a whole - it's the way the system is set up that is at fault. If you want a good read on it, I can well-recommend Frank Field's Book "The State of Dependency: Welfare under Labour".(before you all start shouting at me, I'm well aware it isn't practical/possible with the current welfare system, I'm talking about specific communities who had a lot of financial and practical help available at the time).
Makes no difference. Welfare is either worth it - or it is not.IMHO a lot of problems were caused by a generation of children growing up in a household where they had no working role models, or at least saw their parents trying to get a job.
Not just that.As a parent I think it's a grossly irresponsible to set that kind of example. I was worse off working when my children were younger but did it because I had a sense of social responsibility I wanted to pass on my children.
But surely some would say your responsibility as a provider is to provide the maximum you can for your children?As opposed to being a burden on the state
Well this is one of the niggles I have: No one is a burden on the State. The State has *NOTHING* that the people don't give it willing at gunpoint. The State is a burden on people. Virtually nothing is a burden on the State, because it spends willingly. Every law is a law passed willingly by the State.
The State taxes as much as it can without reference to its expenditure. Without Social Security, the State would be spending money killing (more) people in their homes in far-off lands.
I hope you didn't think your taxes would go down.( OMG I'll shut up now. I sound like Maggie T!!!!!!)
She has her opinion as valid as anyone else's. In fact she belongs to a diverse but exceeding select group of politicians who voice their opinions - such as Tony Benn, Ian Paisley, Frank Field et al - as opposed to those that voice other peoples' opinions. Who *should* be villified.Seriously, I was closely involved in the redundancies and fascinated by why people in the same situation made the choices they did.
Because people are different and have different values and priorities, hopes and fears, strengths and weaknesses. You can't say beforehand whether people are going to succeed or fail, just maybe pull a probability out of the air. Even then - that's not guaranteed."Follow the money!" - Deepthroat (AKA William Mark Felt Sr - Associate Director of the FBI)
"We were born and raised in a summer haze." Adele 'Someone like you.'
"Blowing your mind, 'cause you know what you'll find, when you're looking for things in the sky." OMD 'Julia's Song'0 -
This kind of "playing" usually means they're not interested....
Well that's my hopes dashed...
You can have the best financial plans you like, you never know what curveball is coming round the corner. That's the way life works.
But you can if you're a financial advisor who has "seen it all"."Follow the money!" - Deepthroat (AKA William Mark Felt Sr - Associate Director of the FBI)
"We were born and raised in a summer haze." Adele 'Someone like you.'
"Blowing your mind, 'cause you know what you'll find, when you're looking for things in the sky." OMD 'Julia's Song'0 -
Every thinking person tries to allow for the occasional 'down' but NOBODY - not even someone who claims to be as successful as you obviously do, can predict the future with any reasonable degree of accuracy.
Rog is bang on. Conrad, you state in one of your posts that nobody can predict what is coming but that you can always plan for bad luck and be prepared for it, if and when it does come. You're dead right, but you fail to allow for the fact that sometimes even the best planning isn't enough to prevent you from debt. The best laid plans can always go wrong...
It's very easy in hindsight to pinpoint where somebody could have made a different different choice that would have given better results. Hindsight's a wonderful thing that way.
And it's very easy to feel smug that your good financial choices have stopped you from getting into debt. But you have no idea what's around the corner. I too know plenty of people who have physical or mental illnesses who aren't in financial trouble. But that doesn't mean I'm going to sit in judgment on someone who is. Everyone's circumstances are different and it's not always bad choices that have got them here.
Instead of casting judgment on them (which is how your posts come across) you'd be better off helping them make improve their situations.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards