Live within your means!

Joined
16 Sep 2006
Messages
4,413
Reaction score
851
Location
Fife
Country
United Kingdom
I'm all for that approach, however is that really what government want? If the masses started to genuinely live within their means, the economy would surely nose dive? Some examples from 100s:
  • People stop buying/leasing new cars every 3-4 years and only change once a decade or more.
  • New sofa and furniture for the house every few years? Nah, we'll do that once a decade at most.
  • Holidays abroad? Nah, local camp site from now on.
  • New clothes? Nah, charity shops from now on or new stuff only when absolutely needed.
  • Bigger house on that new estate? Nah, we'll stay put and do nowt to improve our current place.
  • Food? No more luxury items and we'll only buy what we absolutely need.
In short, if everyone (that to varying degrees currently live beyond their means) started to live very much within their means year in year out, the economy would be f**ked, no? If we all adopted the mentality of only spending 'when required not desired' how would that fit with our capitalist economic model?

Full disclosure, I live alone, no family to appease, and I do tend to live frugally. It's not really an intentional thing as such i.e. I don't feel I'm suffering due to it. Me and my old mum often joke it's a good job not everyone's like us as we generally don't spend that much on 'stuff.'

I think of 5 year old trainers as being new ;)
 
Sponsored Links
But if people can afford those things out of their disposable income, surely that is the definition of living within their means?

Surely the op is living below his means? What does he plan to do with all his savings when he's too old to enjoy things?

Mrs Motties mum is the same as the OP. A lifetime of frugality has left her with a 4 bed detached house and literally hundreds of thousands of pounds in savings yet she still shops in the cheapest food stores, turns the heating off if she as much as feels a bit of warmth from a radiator (and wears a coat indoors), rarely spends more than a fiver on an article of clothing and even though she is in her eighties, she is racking up savings at an alarming rate in her current account with her state and private pensions. I'm pretty sure she'll die cold and hungry.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
I think he means it the other way, our economy is reliant on people spending money on such things and belt tightening would have an adverse effect on the economy.
 
Mrs Motties mum is the same as the OP. A lifetime of frugality has left her with a 4 bed detached house and literally hundreds of thousands of pounds in savings yet she still shops in the cheapest food stores, turns the heating off if she as much as feels a bit of warmth from a radiator (and wears a coat indoors), rarely spends more than a fiver on an article of clothing and even though she is in her eighties, she is racking up savings at an alarming rate in her current account with her state and private pensions. I'm pretty sure she'll die cold and hungry.
At least if your MiL ever needs to go into a care home, she'll be able to pay for it herself so can pick and choose where she goes.
 
Good news is that from Oct next year they are bringing in a cap so that the max liability for care home costs is £86,000 per person. Not before time.
Can you choose which home you go to? I mean, if you choose a decent one, £86k means you'll only pay for your first year and a half so I wonder if they downgrade you when you've spent the max?
 
Mottie, treat your wife with as much kindness and loving tenderness as you can! Bow down to her every whim and fancy.
You don't want to throw your future away on a spur of the moment rashness! :LOL:
 
People talk about spending less as if it were optional and having savings as a result.

I can see a great many cutting their spending to the quick and still it won't be enough, never mind leaving them savings.
 
Can you choose which home you go to? I mean, if you choose a decent one, £86k means you'll only pay for your first year and a half so I wonder if they downgrade you when you've spent the max?

Not really sure. I only know the basic facts about the cap on fees liability. Interesting questions though. Maybe the info is somewhere in here -

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...t-social-care-charging-reform-further-details

https://www.which.co.uk/news/articl...nging-and-how-will-it-affect-you-atJJX5g9ohbV
 
Good news is that from Oct next year they are bringing in a cap so that the max liability for care home costs is £86,000 per person. Not before time.
If only it was as simple as that...

In the small print a person is still expected to pay for daily living costs as the cap only pays for the cost of 'care' and is also based on what the local authority is prepared to pay.

"Any costs such as room and board in a care home or utility bills will not count towards the £86,000 cap. People will pay at least £200 a week to stay in a home, and even though this adds up to £10,400 a year, it will not be included in the calculation of how much someone has paid for their care"

What is covered is "nursing and assistance needed, whether it’s with washing and dressing, feeding, or managing health problems"
 
Great post and a valid one

Via my previous job I often noted those on the lowest income often benefits had at least one dog and often more and if not a dog, several cats.
now I don't know the cost of dog/cat food and vet bills but as I've said before people should go through tests to see if they are fit for the purpose and affordability.

The same group of people would often insist that little "johnny" was not going "without as its Christmasss" init!!

They could spend less on mobile phones/contracts and cabs and walk, ride a bike or use public transport back from the pub, supermarket

Re food shopping, I recall my mum and sister going to the town market and shops before there were supermarkets and wlaking with bags full of shopping and all done via bus as dad was at work then every second week dad would go with mum in our car.

People need to ensure they pay their dues first then mobiles of the latest type, big tv packages inc all types of football etc, gamble less, drink less, smoke less - it can be done as no one gave us any money nor did we want it, fact


.



.
 
I think he means it the other way, our economy is reliant on people spending money on such things and belt tightening would have an adverse effect on the economy.
Spot on. Think of your average retail park on a Saturday afternoon. Rammed with folk, many of whom are buying stuff. Now, of the stuff bought on a given day, I'd assert a fair percentage of it has been bought unnecessarily and by people that are slapping it on plastic.

I'm not advocating living like scrooge. My assertion as correctly picked up on by some is that a portion, maybe a significant portion, of our economic activity is driven by financial transactions from individuals living beyond their means ... however if they didn't buy buy buy ... our economy would be in an even more dire state.

I'm focused on retiring at 60 or as close to, so yes, much of my otherwise disposable income is going on things like mortgage overpayments. Yes I could spend more, however I'd be consigning myself to working until I'm 67 give or take. Something I don't want to do. Of course it's a calculated gamble, I could drop dead tomorrow. But it's a gamble I'd rather take as opposed to spending more and having to work x years longer.

And fyi Mottie, trust me, my intention is not to die at 90 with hundreds of thousands lying in the bank ;)
 
Good news is that from Oct next year they are bringing in a cap so that the max liability for care home costs is £86,000 per person. Not before time.


Read the small print dear.
The 86k is only the cost of the nusrisng care, mate!!!

The 86k does NOT include food and the rental of the bed/room in that place, fact!!

In simple terms the cap does NOT include board and lodggings, facT!!

Get your facts straight before you post misinformation.

Thanks

.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top