Millions have saving of less than £100
Discussion
I had a rich friend, in business of his own, with a decent turnover. It was to do with land acquisition and development. He had to mix with the rich and famous and was upset when he realised he had to get rid of his Volvo 240 of 10 years to get something more in keeping with his position. He was talked into a Volvo T5 by the sales staff, and it terrified him.
He was a lovely bloke, kind, gentle, unpretentious and corrupt, although I didn't know about the last bit until another friend of mine, a town planner, was found to be taking bungs, some of which were from him.
His wife, on the other hand was a bit of a social climber. She took elocution lessons to rid herself of a course saaff Lundan accent, which she did very well. When his business started expanding, at least in income, but he still had the 240, she wanted a new car to fit her image and opted for a BMW 3-series.
They came round for a meal in her car, she would no longer ride in his, and, as you do, I went out to admire her German precision engineered car. I said how much I liked it and that the block of her four-cylinder engine had been used, in slightly smaller capacity, in a Formula 1 car, knocking out 1500bhp in qualy trim. She didn't believe me. I then asked her how she liked it.
'It's got very hard suspension and the seats aren't all that comfortable.'
I didn't ask the tempting question as to why she'd bought the damn thing but merely pointed out that it was a sports saloon.
She said, 'But for all that money, they could make the seats comfortable.' Which is reasonable I suppose. Chatting to my mate I was told that all she did was moan about it. He was getting a bit irritated by her ways by then, which heralded a divorce a couple of years later, hence his need to offer bribes I suppose. He said, 'It's great. I just tell her it was her choice.'
He must have earned ten times what I did but his life was a mess, one way or another. He'd have been at his happiest by ticking over, wearing a sloppy jumper, and having an affair with his equally sloppy secretary. Not to mention driving his 240 Volvo for another 10 years.
It's fun picking over the carcass of friends' lives I know, but when we were young he went out with a lovely girl who was from a poor family. She was fun to be with, not overwhelmed by education, and they would have made a happy couple. She'd have put no pressure on him and given him happy kids, although possibly ginger. She'd not be bothered by his car.
I wonder what my mates say about me and my wife.
He was a lovely bloke, kind, gentle, unpretentious and corrupt, although I didn't know about the last bit until another friend of mine, a town planner, was found to be taking bungs, some of which were from him.
His wife, on the other hand was a bit of a social climber. She took elocution lessons to rid herself of a course saaff Lundan accent, which she did very well. When his business started expanding, at least in income, but he still had the 240, she wanted a new car to fit her image and opted for a BMW 3-series.
They came round for a meal in her car, she would no longer ride in his, and, as you do, I went out to admire her German precision engineered car. I said how much I liked it and that the block of her four-cylinder engine had been used, in slightly smaller capacity, in a Formula 1 car, knocking out 1500bhp in qualy trim. She didn't believe me. I then asked her how she liked it.
'It's got very hard suspension and the seats aren't all that comfortable.'
I didn't ask the tempting question as to why she'd bought the damn thing but merely pointed out that it was a sports saloon.
She said, 'But for all that money, they could make the seats comfortable.' Which is reasonable I suppose. Chatting to my mate I was told that all she did was moan about it. He was getting a bit irritated by her ways by then, which heralded a divorce a couple of years later, hence his need to offer bribes I suppose. He said, 'It's great. I just tell her it was her choice.'
He must have earned ten times what I did but his life was a mess, one way or another. He'd have been at his happiest by ticking over, wearing a sloppy jumper, and having an affair with his equally sloppy secretary. Not to mention driving his 240 Volvo for another 10 years.
It's fun picking over the carcass of friends' lives I know, but when we were young he went out with a lovely girl who was from a poor family. She was fun to be with, not overwhelmed by education, and they would have made a happy couple. She'd have put no pressure on him and given him happy kids, although possibly ginger. She'd not be bothered by his car.
I wonder what my mates say about me and my wife.
KingNothing said:
I have a few grand in a HTB ISA, once that is gone on the purchase of my house later this year I'll have no savings, all my available money will be going on paying bills/debts, doubt I'll have any savings till at least 2018. But once they're gone I do have quite a decent disposable income.
Similar to me. Spent a shedload the past 3 years on holidays. Really enjoyed myself whilst saving for a house deposit.Hopefully be in a house by June next year then we will be trying for a kid, so if we do conceive we will save up in them 9 months and have a bit to the side for when the wife goes off for a bit.
On topic, I know lots of people who live month to month. Some people part time only earning £600 a month but still living at home. SO £50 of that goes on an iPhone obviously and the other £550 on food and drink for the weekend.
My dad has always drummed it into me to be sensible with money but still enjoy it.
Cigarettes is a big killer in peoples finances. £15 a day and they only earn a few hundred a month. Just doesn't mix.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I wonder what my mates say about me and my wife.
This is half the problem. Everyone is too worried about what other people think (trying to show off, keep up etc). Personally, I'm beyond caring anymore and just do what's best for me and mine. Figured you were much the same.
I know some unbelievably rich people, they are just the same as everyone else, they just have bigger toys.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I wonder what my mates say about me and my wife.
This is half the problem. Everyone is too worried about what other people think (trying to show off, keep up etc). Personally, I'm beyond caring anymore and just do what's best for me and mine. Figured you were much the same.
Then again, I'm from Yorkshire and I live in Scotland, so every pound is a prisoner, as you can probably well imagine
Edited by FN2TypeR on Sunday 2nd October 07:30
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I wonder what my mates say about me and my wife.
This is half the problem. Everyone is too worried about what other people think (trying to show off, keep up etc). Personally, I'm beyond caring anymore and just do what's best for me and mine. Figured you were much the same.
It is true that I wonder what friends think about my choice of wife and my wife's choice of husband. It's out of interest. I don't care. I've been married for 46 years and sill enjoy one-another's company so I'm doing better than I thought. My M-i-L never took to me and mentioned the fact that I worked in a factory more than once. I was a printer. She had greater hopes for her eldest.
However, I'm not really worried what people think of my lifestyle etc. I used to be though, when in my teens.
This despite a fine example from my grandmother. I was called 'bog Irish' by one of the group I used to knock around with when around 10 or so. I went home, mentioned it to my gran. She thought for a second or two then shrugged and said: 'We are.'
That stuck with me in the sense of name calling. She was a great old girl. Didn't give a damn.
I lost touch with both my mates after the police enquiry. I couldn't speak to one who was on bail. The other one seemed a bit ashamed. Last I heard he was doing all right. I pinged him on FB but was blanked.
'New Scientist' said:
... From 1998 to 2010, approximately 800,000 children in the UK were lifted above that poverty line, largely because of policies designed to do so. But progress is fragile. Over the past five years 500,000 have slumped back in. The Institute of Fiscal Studies forecasts that by the end of this parliament the number will have climbed back to its late-1990s peak, despite legally binding targets to reduce child poverty.
That is a shameful statistic. Politicians paying lip service to the goal while spectacularly failing to deliver it might be jolted into action by the fact that their abject performance is costing the taxpayer huge sums of money. According to one recent analysis, dealing with the consequences of child poverty directly costs the UK government £15 billion a year, £3 billion more than in 2008.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230933-400...That is a shameful statistic. Politicians paying lip service to the goal while spectacularly failing to deliver it might be jolted into action by the fact that their abject performance is costing the taxpayer huge sums of money. According to one recent analysis, dealing with the consequences of child poverty directly costs the UK government £15 billion a year, £3 billion more than in 2008.
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Sunday 2nd October 10:05
4x4Tyke said:
New Statesman said:
... From 1998 to 2010, approximately 800,000 children in the UK were lifted above that poverty line, largely because of policies designed to do so. But progress is fragile. Over the past five years 500,000 have slumped back in. The Institute of Fiscal Studies forecasts that by the end of this parliament the number will have climbed back to its late-1990s peak, despite legally binding targets to reduce child poverty.
That is a shameful statistic. Politicians paying lip service to the goal while spectacularly failing to deliver it might be jolted into action by the fact that their abject performance is costing the taxpayer huge sums of money. According to one recent analysis, dealing with the consequences of child poverty directly costs the UK government £15 billion a year, £3 billion more than in 2008.https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230933-40...
Edited by RYH64E on Sunday 2nd October 09:06
4x4Tyke said:
[quote]... From 1998 to 2010, approximately 800,000 children in the UK were lifted above that poverty line, largely because of policies designed to do so. But progress is fragile. Over the past five years 500,000 have slumped back in. The Institute of Fiscal Studies forecasts that by the end of this parliament the number will have climbed back to its late-1990s peak, despite legally binding targets to reduce child poverty.
That is a shameful statistic. Politicians paying lip service to the goal while spectacularly failing to deliver it might be jolted into action by the fact that their abject performance is costing the taxpayer huge sums of money. According to one recent analysis, dealing with the consequences of child poverty directly costs the UK government £15 billion a year, £3 billion more than in 2008.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230933-40...
That is a shameful statistic. Politicians paying lip service to the goal while spectacularly failing to deliver it might be jolted into action by the fact that their abject performance is costing the taxpayer huge sums of money. According to one recent analysis, dealing with the consequences of child poverty directly costs the UK government £15 billion a year, £3 billion more than in 2008.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230933-40...
........ aside from which poverty is defined as a percentage of median income, which mean there will always be the same number in poverty.
Edited by GT03ROB on Sunday 2nd October 09:12
4x4Tyke said:
GT03ROB said:
....... and the relevance is???
Obvious ...GT03ROB said:
........ aside from which poverty is defined as a percentage of median income, which mean there will always be the same number in poverty.
... along with your wilful ignorance.The article disproves that assertion.
4x4Tyke said:
GT03ROB said:
....... and the relevance is???
Obvious ...GT03ROB said:
........ aside from which poverty is defined as a percentage of median income, which mean there will always be the same number in poverty.
... along with your wilful ignorance.The article disproves that assertion.y
....& I did read the article & still question the relevance in the context of this thread
GT03ROB said:
aside from which poverty is defined as a percentage of median income, which mean there will always be the same number in poverty.
I'm not sure your maths is spot on there. How would you draw the line? Remember that poverty is defined relatively, and the line is put at a level where people cannot afford what are seen as the norm for the average person. It includes opportunities, and surely we want equal opportunities for everyone.
Poverty is not the same as absolute poverty. One would hope that no civilised society allows its people to be in absolute poverty, ie where some people cannot afford food, clothing, housing and such. It does happen in the UK of course, but that's a different subject to the one we're discussing.
Poverty is defined. If you don't like the accepted level, then what do you suggest it should be? It must be different from absolute poverty.
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure your maths is spot on there.
How would you draw the line? Remember that poverty is defined relatively, and the line is put at a level where people cannot afford what are seen as the norm for the average person. It includes opportunities, and surely we want equal opportunities for everyone.
Poverty is not the same as absolute poverty. One would hope that no civilised society allows its people to be in absolute poverty, ie where some people cannot afford food, clothing, housing and such. It does happen in the UK of course, but that's a different subject to the one we're discussing.
Poverty is defined. If you don't like the accepted level, then what do you suggest it should be? It must be different from absolute poverty.
"Poverty" is fairly unambiguous. However, having been all but eradicated in first world countries, certain people sought to create a new metric (relative poverty) in order to justify their political opinions.How would you draw the line? Remember that poverty is defined relatively, and the line is put at a level where people cannot afford what are seen as the norm for the average person. It includes opportunities, and surely we want equal opportunities for everyone.
Poverty is not the same as absolute poverty. One would hope that no civilised society allows its people to be in absolute poverty, ie where some people cannot afford food, clothing, housing and such. It does happen in the UK of course, but that's a different subject to the one we're discussing.
Poverty is defined. If you don't like the accepted level, then what do you suggest it should be? It must be different from absolute poverty.
There are numerous different definitions of relative poverty, not a single agreed metric. The UK definition referred to above is different than the OECD version.
Derek Smith said:
GT03ROB said:
aside from which poverty is defined as a percentage of median income, which mean there will always be the same number in poverty.
I'm not sure your maths is spot on there. How would you draw the line? Remember that poverty is defined relatively, and the line is put at a level where people cannot afford what are seen as the norm for the average person. It includes opportunities, and surely we want equal opportunities for everyone.
Poverty is not the same as absolute poverty. One would hope that no civilised society allows its people to be in absolute poverty, ie where some people cannot afford food, clothing, housing and such. It does happen in the UK of course, but that's a different subject to the one we're discussing.
Poverty is defined. If you don't like the accepted level, then what do you suggest it should be? It must be different from absolute poverty.
Willy Nilly said:
Derek Smith said:
GT03ROB said:
aside from which poverty is defined as a percentage of median income, which mean there will always be the same number in poverty.
I'm not sure your maths is spot on there. How would you draw the line? Remember that poverty is defined relatively, and the line is put at a level where people cannot afford what are seen as the norm for the average person. It includes opportunities, and surely we want equal opportunities for everyone.
Poverty is not the same as absolute poverty. One would hope that no civilised society allows its people to be in absolute poverty, ie where some people cannot afford food, clothing, housing and such. It does happen in the UK of course, but that's a different subject to the one we're discussing.
Poverty is defined. If you don't like the accepted level, then what do you suggest it should be? It must be different from absolute poverty.
Relative poverty is a superb construct for agitators to make political capital out of those less well-off than themselves.
Derek Smith said:
GT03ROB said:
aside from which poverty is defined as a percentage of median income, which mean there will always be the same number in poverty.
I'm not sure your maths is spot on there. How would you draw the line? Remember that poverty is defined relatively, and the line is put at a level where people cannot afford what are seen as the norm for the average person. It includes opportunities, and surely we want equal opportunities for everyone.
Poverty is not the same as absolute poverty. One would hope that no civilised society allows its people to be in absolute poverty, ie where some people cannot afford food, clothing, housing and such. It does happen in the UK of course, but that's a different subject to the one we're discussing.
Poverty is defined. If you don't like the accepted level, then what do you suggest it should be? It must be different from absolute poverty.
In a modern 1st world country nobody should lack the following: housing; medical care; education; food; clothing. The debate is around the standard these things must be provided to.
Elimination of poverty in the 1st world should not involve provision of money, but provision of opportunity. This is basically education. Successive governments have failed repeatedly in this respect. Provision of opportunity in this respect is about the provision of an educational system that is appropriate to individuals needs. it is not about dumbing down to the lowest common denominator & telling everybody they can get a degree.
Anyhow we are now way off topic!!
GT03ROB said:
In a modern 1st world country nobody should lack the following: housing; medical care; education; food; clothing. The debate is around the standard these things must be provided to.
Elimination of poverty in the 1st world should not involve provision of money, but provision of opportunity. This is basically education. Successive governments have failed repeatedly in this respect. Provision of opportunity in this respect is about the provision of an educational system that is appropriate to individuals needs. it is not about dumbing down to the lowest common denominator & telling everybody they can get a degree.
Hear, hear.Elimination of poverty in the 1st world should not involve provision of money, but provision of opportunity. This is basically education. Successive governments have failed repeatedly in this respect. Provision of opportunity in this respect is about the provision of an educational system that is appropriate to individuals needs. it is not about dumbing down to the lowest common denominator & telling everybody they can get a degree.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff