What's wrong with people.
Comments
-
Well that's interesting, because the last time I mentioned Frank on a forum I was told that it's communism.
I think you need to read the book before you start arguing with it, because what Frank advocates has absolutely nothing to do with the Howe policies you describe. In fact he devotes a large part of the book to explaining what's wrong with them just as you have. Frank's policies will reduce inequality rather than increasing it, which is precisely his objective.
I haven't read that book. Just wanted to point out that the way the Government has raised the income tax threshold has created more inequality and more losers than gainers. Because everybody pays the stealth taxes, wheras only those above a certain level gain from raising the tax threshold and the rich on higher rate tax gain the most.
So they have to dress it as help for the low paid to get elected - and hope the poorest don't understand how they are being conned.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
The answer would appear to be yes. It's been known for a long time that increasing wealth doesn't produce a corresponding increase in happiness, probably because happiness is inextricably linked to status, which is a zero sum game.Does happiness given by spending have an inherently lower quality than happiness brought by a walk out fund ...
When Mr Jones buys a bigger car than Mr Smith, the happiness only lasts until Mr Smith buys a bigger car, so if you look at the collective happiness of them both, particularly over the long term, there's no change, in spite of the escalating size of their cars.
There's also the effect of habituation. When you drive to the car dealer on the way to pick up your brand new car you may be daydreaming about how much more fun it will be to drive, and how much more pleasant you commute will be, but you've completely forgotten that you felt exactly the same way about the car you're sitting in when you bought that. The excitement of a new purchase quickly wears off because of habituation, but when people don't understand this you get the Imelda Marcos effect: buying hundreds of shoes/handbags/dresses/whatever in an attempt to maintain the feeling. As Geoffrey Miller says: consumerism is founded on the denial of habituation.0 -
The answer would appear to be yes. It's been known for a long time that increasing wealth doesn't produce a corresponding increase in happiness, probably because happiness is inextricably linked to status, which is a zero sum game.
When Mr Jones buys a bigger car than Mr Smith, the happiness only lasts until Mr Smith buys a bigger car, so if you look at the collective happiness of them both, particularly over the long term, there's no change, in spite of the escalating size of their cars.
There's also the effect of habituation. When you drive to the car dealer on the way to pick up your brand new car you may be daydreaming about how much more fun it will be to drive, and how much more pleasant you commute will be, but you've completely forgotten that you felt exactly the same way about the car you're sitting in when you bought that. The excitement of a new purchase quickly wears off because of habituation, but when people don't understand this you get the Imelda Marcos effect: buying hundreds of shoes/handbags/dresses/whatever in an attempt to maintain the feeling. As Geoffrey Miller says: consumerism is founded on the denial of habituation.
As I get older I am less and less concerned with the Smiths and Jones'. I'm not even that old but I much prefer to laugh at the pair of them spinning their little hamster wheels faster and faster whilst traveling a total distance of zero!
:beer:0 -
The maths doesn't add up; 200k/12 is 16.7k per year which, unless working 80 odd hours a week, is not possible on min wage. As the OP 'loves their life' I am assuming they've not been working 80 hours a week on min wage because to me the two are mutually exclusive! Even factoring in a 'small' inheritance of, say, 50k (small is very subjective so I've just used 1/4 as a ball park figure) that is 150k over 12 years so 12.5k a year.binaryuniverse wrote: »Saving £200'000, over 12 years on minimum wage "easy" ?
When I was on minimum wage, doing 39 hours a week, once my living costs had come out, I was happy to see a tenner a week.
Even on the salary I'm on now, I don't see £200'000 being easy. It's doable if I had absolutely no living costs, and little/no social life. But then I wouldn't be living.
How is it even possible, unless living rent free, getting free food etc.
OP - please share some tips because I earn well above min wage and cannot save anywhere near 12.5k a year!0 -
The maths don't add up; 200k/12 is 16.7k per year which, unless working 80 odd hours a week, is not possible. Even factoring in a 'small' inheritance of, say, 50k (small is very subjective) that is 150k over 12 years so 12.5k a year.
How is it even possible, unless living rent free, getting free food etc.
OP - please share some tips because I earn well above min wage and cannot save anywhere near 12.5k a year!
The inheritance was a house and cash of around 50 K, I live in the house which has obviously reduced expenditure considerably, and most of my money has been invested over the good market run we have had over the last 8 years (although I have now sold out of most of my shares).
I have been fortunate, however the point I am trying to make is that even on a lowish wage I have always managed to save a good proportion of income (even prior to the inheritance) by not chasing the best cars, clothes & phones.
While on a low wage I accept it would be impossible to build up a substantial amount of assets, but it should with sensible living be easy over a period of time to save for some security.0 -
Two obvious factors would be investment growth- people cleverer than me and having more interest in it could calculate it- it could account for about half that figure and op said they are not on minimum wage but close to it.The word "dilemma" comes from Greek where "di" means two and "lemma" means premise. Refers usually to difficult choice between two undesirable options.
Often people seem to use this word mistakenly where "quandary" would fit better.0 -
longleggedhair wrote: »The inheritance was a house and cash of around 50 K, I live in the house which has obviously reduced expenditure considerably, and most of my money has been invested over the good market run we have had over the last 8 years (although I have now sold out of most of my shares).
I have been fortunate, however the point I am trying to make is that even on a lowish wage I have always managed to save a good proportion of income (even prior to the inheritance) by not chasing the best cars, clothes & phones.
While on a low wage I accept it would be impossible to build up a substantial amount of assets, but it should with sensible living be easy over a period of time to save for some security.
That makes sense then. Whilst fantastic, I do think that quoting figures such as 200k and 12 years whilst on just above minimum wage is slightly misleading as most people do not get a mortgage free (presumably) house and 50k so would spend those 12 years paying 500-1200/month on rent/mortgage. However, I do get the point of your post in the sense that a lot of people more than likely do spend on frivolous things. I also applaud you for not doing so as, even though I am quite prudent, I would find it tempting to increase my discretionary spending rather than simply saving/investing every penny I would otherwise have spent on the mortgage.0 -
I suppose it was not most sensitive of you to post how well you have done on mimimal wage if you were left a house. For someone on minimal wage would not be able to afford decent accommodation full stop to have quality of life let alone save that amount as cost of renting/mortgage (one that you did not have) would swallow up most of their income. So your inheritance was not small, it was massive and lifechanging.
The topic is still interesting thoughThe word "dilemma" comes from Greek where "di" means two and "lemma" means premise. Refers usually to difficult choice between two undesirable options.
Often people seem to use this word mistakenly where "quandary" would fit better.0 -
Two obvious factors would be investment growth- people cleverer than me and having more interest in it could calculate it- it could account for about half that figure and op said they are not on minimum wage but close to it.
I've got several formula's if anyone wants to work it out properly but as a rough guide assuming 5% a year growth an investment will double in 20 years.0 -
I was/am one of these idiots, and am slowly seeing the light. My problem has always been "I've got to have it now, I'll earn more later".
My now wife and I were forced to move out early (21 and 19 respectively), so we battled hard to get enough money together to rent our own flat. We live in the Southeast, so cost of living is difficult, especially for people starting out in their careers.
We made a gamble in "borrowing" against my parents home (they remortgaged, gave us the money and we paid their mortgage) to buy our first flat. By the ages of 29/27, we had a decent-sized four-bedroom home with a fair chunk of equity, two brand new cars on the drive, and about 4-5 debt payments every month. Joint income was nearly six figures, but we had no savings to speak of and everything was "on tick".
Cars has always been my biggest weakness - I am determined not to splash out again at the end of the PCP, but easy for me to say now as my current car is only a few months old.
Yes we bought some things we could have done without - we're on our fourth set of furniture/sofas, we've had holidays we couldn't afford, but....
Had I been frugal from the start, I might have a few grand in the bank, but I probably wouldn't be on the property ladder. Change in approach is largely down to having our first child, and wanting to save so she might go to private secondary school (prep school seems out the question). Now I've climbed a little way up the corporate ladder, it's also harder to just go out and earn an extra few grand to pay for the latest luxury.
Do I regret being wasteful? In some respects, but I am still only 30 and plenty of time to change my ways and start saving.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards