It's time to start digging up those Squirrelled Nuts!!!!

swindiff

I was taught at school that "needs" are shelter, food and water. Anything else is a want. We all want stuff we don't need to survive.

Sea_Shell

I've had no qualms in spending over £1000 on private physiotherapy to keep me "on the road".

Personally I think health and fitness spending falls more into a "need" category rather than a "want".   However, I also include beauty in that category, which is mostly "wants" 😉

We don't have private health insurance currently and so are effectively PAYG

Moonwolf

kimwp said:

Moonwolf said:

Accepting this is a money savings expert forum, I'm not sure people need to be too judgemental about others spending.

We currently put £1,500 a month into our joint account between us.  Excepting future care needs and that I currently need a car, we could live on that,. All our essentials are covered, but is it really an issue if I want to spend more than that?  

One of my big luxuries is a personal trainer at the gym.  I know from covid times that I can do some of it at home but it isn't the same and having had major surgery for bowel cancer, my fitness and fitness reserves are very important to me. I don't need it, I don't even need a gym, but it is something I feel better about having and I get better results than DIY.  

I appreciate that it could come across as judgemental, but really I'm trying to express my current understanding of the world (with some clarification when asked) - presumably those who do spend more either have justification or happy being wanton or with their environmental impact - why would they care what I think.

Also, I'm very happy to be persuaded that's ok to spend on whatever I feel like!

I'd say health is a need and you are gaining benefit by that extra spend/environmental impact....but also it doesn't matter what I think about your spends.

I have no idea why having a personal trainer is being wanton with my environmental impact. 

zagfles

kimwp said:

zagfles said:

kimwp said:

swindiff said:

kimwp said:

swindiff said:

No-one "needs" £50k.  But there is nothing wrong with wanting it.

If it means accelerating climate change, isn't that a bit wrong?

I fail to see how having more disposable income equates to accelerating climate change. Most of the cheap, disposable, consumable items come from Asia.  It would cost a lot more to buy better quality products from domestic producers.  Which do you think is worse for the environment?

I'm saying that buying more than you need has an unjustifiable impact on the environment. (Though noting that needs include enjoying life)

I wasn't really intending to debate cheap Vs expensive in terms of environmental impact, but most products made domestically, in this country at least, will have a supply chain for their products and tools spanning the world. 

Although I'd agree, before getting too judgemental remember that stuff like owning a dog has a bigger environmental impact than an SUV, and having a child bigger still! 

Absolutely, it's a very nuanced and complex topic and I'm not pretending to be perfect in only buying what I need - I definitely have more than basic needs dictate....but on a spend of less than £14k p.a. (not including big spends like new kitchen, holidays, no mortgage, but including fairly expensive quality items and organic food, plus things I don't really need for many unfinished projects), £50k+ to me implies wanton spend.

I know they are just a few of many examples, but - I don't have kids, I believe in only having rescues because they already exist so their impact is already determined 

Sorry way OT, but "already determined"? There is the option of putting down unwanted pets. Maybe you consider it immoral to kill an animal, but how many animals are going to be killed to provide a carnivorous pet with food over their lifetime? Less animals will be killed if you put the dog down. Personally I see no reason to value the life of a dog over that of a pig, cow, sheep, chicken or rabbit. Even if they aren't as cute. Plus it'd be good for the environment. 

kimwp

Moonwolf said:

kimwp said:

Moonwolf said:

Accepting this is a money savings expert forum, I'm not sure people need to be too judgemental about others spending.

We currently put £1,500 a month into our joint account between us.  Excepting future care needs and that I currently need a car, we could live on that,. All our essentials are covered, but is it really an issue if I want to spend more than that?  

One of my big luxuries is a personal trainer at the gym.  I know from covid times that I can do some of it at home but it isn't the same and having had major surgery for bowel cancer, my fitness and fitness reserves are very important to me. I don't need it, I don't even need a gym, but it is something I feel better about having and I get better results than DIY.  

I appreciate that it could come across as judgemental, but really I'm trying to express my current understanding of the world (with some clarification when asked) - presumably those who do spend more either have justification or happy being wanton or with their environmental impact - why would they care what I think.

Also, I'm very happy to be persuaded that's ok to spend on whatever I feel like!

I'd say health is a need and you are gaining benefit by that extra spend/environmental impact....but also it doesn't matter what I think about your spends.

I have no idea why having a personal trainer is being wanton with my environmental impact. 

I wrote that health was a need and that you were gaining benefit (from your personal trainer at the gym), by which I meant that I personally would consider it to not be a wanton spend - apologies if that wasn't clear.

My personal line for wantonness (in benefit Vs environmental impact) is where there is no real benefit to me or others and there is an environmental impact.

zagfles said:

kimwp said:

zagfles said:

kimwp said:

swindiff said:

kimwp said:

swindiff said:

No-one "needs" £50k.  But there is nothing wrong with wanting it.

If it means accelerating climate change, isn't that a bit wrong?

I fail to see how having more disposable income equates to accelerating climate change. Most of the cheap, disposable, consumable items come from Asia.  It would cost a lot more to buy better quality products from domestic producers.  Which do you think is worse for the environment?

I'm saying that buying more than you need has an unjustifiable impact on the environment. (Though noting that needs include enjoying life)

I wasn't really intending to debate cheap Vs expensive in terms of environmental impact, but most products made domestically, in this country at least, will have a supply chain for their products and tools spanning the world. 

Although I'd agree, before getting too judgemental remember that stuff like owning a dog has a bigger environmental impact than an SUV, and having a child bigger still! 

Absolutely, it's a very nuanced and complex topic and I'm not pretending to be perfect in only buying what I need - I definitely have more than basic needs dictate....but on a spend of less than £14k p.a. (not including big spends like new kitchen, holidays, no mortgage, but including fairly expensive quality items and organic food, plus things I don't really need for many unfinished projects), £50k+ to me implies wanton spend.

I know they are just a few of many examples, but - I don't have kids, I believe in only having rescues because they already exist so their impact is already determined 

Sorry way OT, but "already determined"? There is the option of putting down unwanted pets. Maybe you consider it immoral to kill an animal, but how many animals are going to be killed to provide a carnivorous pet with food over their lifetime? Less animals will be killed if you put the dog down. Personally I see no reason to value the life of a dog over that of a pig, cow, sheep, chicken or rabbit. Even if they aren't as cute. Plus it'd be good for the environment. 

Yes, but then we could go down the route of human population control. I went veggie when I took on the cats to try to balance out their obligate carnivorous natures and am not far from vegan now. Dogs can be vegetarian. 

Sorry op, said I would stop, will try harder.

zagfles

kimwp said:

Moonwolf said:

kimwp said:

Moonwolf said:

Accepting this is a money savings expert forum, I'm not sure people need to be too judgemental about others spending.

We currently put £1,500 a month into our joint account between us.  Excepting future care needs and that I currently need a car, we could live on that,. All our essentials are covered, but is it really an issue if I want to spend more than that?  

One of my big luxuries is a personal trainer at the gym.  I know from covid times that I can do some of it at home but it isn't the same and having had major surgery for bowel cancer, my fitness and fitness reserves are very important to me. I don't need it, I don't even need a gym, but it is something I feel better about having and I get better results than DIY.  

I appreciate that it could come across as judgemental, but really I'm trying to express my current understanding of the world (with some clarification when asked) - presumably those who do spend more either have justification or happy being wanton or with their environmental impact - why would they care what I think.

Also, I'm very happy to be persuaded that's ok to spend on whatever I feel like!

I'd say health is a need and you are gaining benefit by that extra spend/environmental impact....but also it doesn't matter what I think about your spends.

I have no idea why having a personal trainer is being wanton with my environmental impact. 

I wrote that health was a need and that you were gaining benefit (from your personal trainer at the gym), by which I meant that I personally would consider it to not be a wanton spend - apologies if that wasn't clear.

My personal line for wantonness (in benefit Vs environmental impact) is where there is no real benefit to me or others and there is an environmental impact.

zagfles said:

kimwp said:

zagfles said:

kimwp said:

swindiff said:

kimwp said:

swindiff said:

No-one "needs" £50k.  But there is nothing wrong with wanting it.

If it means accelerating climate change, isn't that a bit wrong?

I fail to see how having more disposable income equates to accelerating climate change. Most of the cheap, disposable, consumable items come from Asia.  It would cost a lot more to buy better quality products from domestic producers.  Which do you think is worse for the environment?

I'm saying that buying more than you need has an unjustifiable impact on the environment. (Though noting that needs include enjoying life)

I wasn't really intending to debate cheap Vs expensive in terms of environmental impact, but most products made domestically, in this country at least, will have a supply chain for their products and tools spanning the world. 

Although I'd agree, before getting too judgemental remember that stuff like owning a dog has a bigger environmental impact than an SUV, and having a child bigger still! 

Absolutely, it's a very nuanced and complex topic and I'm not pretending to be perfect in only buying what I need - I definitely have more than basic needs dictate....but on a spend of less than £14k p.a. (not including big spends like new kitchen, holidays, no mortgage, but including fairly expensive quality items and organic food, plus things I don't really need for many unfinished projects), £50k+ to me implies wanton spend.

I know they are just a few of many examples, but - I don't have kids, I believe in only having rescues because they already exist so their impact is already determined 

Sorry way OT, but "already determined"? There is the option of putting down unwanted pets. Maybe you consider it immoral to kill an animal, but how many animals are going to be killed to provide a carnivorous pet with food over their lifetime? Less animals will be killed if you put the dog down. Personally I see no reason to value the life of a dog over that of a pig, cow, sheep, chicken or rabbit. Even if they aren't as cute. Plus it'd be good for the environment. 

Yes, but then we could go down the route of human population control. I went veggie when I took on the cats to try to balance out their obligate carnivorous natures and am not far from vegan now. Dogs can be vegetarian. 

Of course we could, but it's generally accepted (as demonstrated by common law practically worldwide) that human life is more valuable than animal life, and that it's OK to kill animals subject to controls.

Some people seem to take the view that lives of dogs and cats are more important than the lives of the animals they eat, but to me that seems to be a purely selfish desire to have a cute pet rather than any overriding moral issue, or any actual human need (obviously in some cases it is eg guide dog for the blind). And really no different to owning an SUV or jetting around the world and the other environmentally damaging things people do for their own pleasure. 

Sorry but this is what happens when people get judgemental about other peoples' choices!

Sea_Shell

I like cats and dogs...but I couldn't eat a whole one.
🤣

ex-pat_scot

Sea_Shell said:

I like cats and dogs...but I couldn't eat a whole one.
🤣

and small children.

FIREDreamer

barnstar2077 said:

zagfles said:

Sea_Shell said:

zagfles said:

westv said:

kimwp said:

michaels said:

Sea_Shell said:

Triumph13 said:

Hi Sea_Shell.  It's great to see that your FIRE is going so well.  I FIREd five years ago too, with not too dissimilar gaps until DB and state pensions came on line, so I'm intrigued by how different your strategy is to mine. 

Apologies if this has already been covered at length (400 pages is a bit daunting to catch up on) but do you mind if I ask the reasoning behind your approach?  It's pretty clear that you could probably double your current spending level if you were prepared to spend though more of your funds before the pensions come on line - eg by setting aside £10k a year until DH's pension comes on line, another £10k pa until the first state pension comes on line and then drawing down sustainably from the rest.   Are you particularly wanting to leave a large legacy? No, not really.  We only have S/Niblings, so not our "responsibility" to provide for them.  We will likely gift more as time goes on.  Or just hate the idea of spending capital?  We would happily spend capital on something we need, or want, but we'd still want value for money 😉. Or distrust the future of the state pension?  A little bit.  Maybe it will get pushed back further, meaning we have to wait longer for it.  Or planning to have a really big income in old age to cover care needs?  It's something we are aware of, along with the need for odd-jobs that we'll need doing, once we can't.  I plan to be waited on hand and foot.  Domestic staff aren't cheap 😉.   I'm hoping it's just that you are perfectly happy as you are and can't imagine any higher spending making you happier .  Quite.  Bigger spends don't necessarily mean bigger smiles , plus I really don't like shopping 😁

Answers in bold ^^^

Not forgetting your commitment to minimise your carbon/environmental footprint rather than just spending for spending sake....

This is what I ponder when people talk about needing £50k+ - sure, it's possible to spend any amount of money, but surely there's a point where it's just spending to purchase things that don't really add anything to your life and then there's really no justification for the environmental impact.

It's partly the quality of what you buy too.
You could buy 50 "toothpaste" sausages for £2 or 1 organic local sausage for £2.
When on holiday you could stay at the YHA or you could stay at the best 5 star Hotel.
It soon adds up. Not necessarily to £50k but still a lot.

I've found there's generally not a correlation between price and quality for both food and hotel accomodation. There are obviously some exceptions, like processed meats etc. I've stayed in hotels at £400 a night which were no better than ones costing £100 a night, I've stayed in ones costing £40 a night which were better than ones costing £200. Some of the best restaurants we've been to have also been among the cheapest. 

Most seem driven by brand or a "name" or gimmicks to justify the cost IMO.

Copper bath in the bedroom?!?   But no chair to sit on.    Room service tea/coffee, rather than facilities in the room...so it eventually turns up...tepid.    

Looks great in a brochure mind.

The £400 hotel (or probably $400, but 30+ years ago ) was the first couple of nights of our honeymoon, it had a heated toilet seat that you needed a degree to operate  We had as good a time in the mostly $30-50 motels we stayed in the rest of the honeymoon!

Oh, I bet you did! ^^  :  )

Know what I mean nudge nudge?

Triumph13

Oops.  Sorry for setting all this off. 

For the record, I am one of those with a big budget, but we have two kids still to fledge and a theatre habit.  No dogs, cats or SUVs, but we do need to run two (second hand) cars as we are rural. Lots of holidays, but minimal flying, so carbon footprint not too awful, but evil for supporting the holiday cottage industry which helps price locals out of the market.  

I gladly salute anyone who is living happily on less. For those with the resources to spend more though, the key word there is happily.  As the son of a card-carrying, 100% miser, I know how easy it is to get trapped in a scarcity mindset.  Switching over from saving to spending has been a real challenge for me, and I know many others with a similar experience.  I'm glad to know that that isn't the case for you and that you are happily living your best life Sea_Shell.