or is £117 per month hardly worth getting upset over ?

[LurkingHusband]

(In another thread, a poster has suggested

"£117 per month is hardly worth getting upset over."

AIBU to feel for the majority of posters here it is something significant - and therefore "worth getting upset over" ?

[SouthDownsSunshine]

No idea of the context, but yes! It's a big deal!

[Fairylea]

Would be a massive deal for us!

[Wheresthattomoibabber]

It's all relative. Another poster was criticised for asking for a £3 refund - I just thought "2 loaves of bread and 6 pints of milk"!

[19lottie82]

As someone else says, it depends on the context......

[BillBrysonsBeard]

It would be to me and everyone I know!

[LurkingHusband]

No idea of the context

The context is a poster in another thread broke down the Cameron gains from his fathers investments, and declared they amounted to £117 a month.

So far, so unremarkable.

Then another poster went on to castigate people who are calling for Cameron to resign, with the defence ...

£117 per month is hardly worth getting upset over. As said before, storm in teacup.

At which point I felt we needed a reality check. Hence this thread.

[ILoveMyMonkey]

YANBU every penny counts / pennies make pounds and so on and so forth!

[Charlesroi]

Yeah, it is worth getting a bit upset over.
There was a thread a couple of days ago asking how someone could feed themselves for 8 days on £15. It could be your shopping budget.

[Maroonie]

Well that's about £1400 a year,
Which would make a big difference to me
But yes depends on context really

[MeadowHay]

YANBU. That is a huge sum of money for me.

And I'm literally in disbelief about how many posters on MN are defending the Camerons!!

[RupertPupkin]

Well in that case it's ALL about context! Even if he was getting £1/month the situation still needs investigating.

[Maroonie]

Depends how long for too- 117 a month for 6 months is very different to 117 a month for 20 years!

[Maroonie]

Now I've seen the context I think the a mount is irrelavent- it's the principal and its very wrong

[LurkingHusband]

And I'm literally in disbelief about how many posters on MN are defending the Camerons!!

It's the internet. Who says they're real ? Maybe somebody just unleased v3.0 of Microsofts Tay on Mumsnet

[LurkingHusband]

Well in that case it's ALL about context! Even if he was getting £1/month the situation still needs investigating.

Just to be clear this £117 is not in any way shape or form illegal or unlawful (as far as we know). It's legally taxed income from the sale of assets.

It's just the attitude that's being called out on here.

[MrsTerryPratchett]

And I'm literally in disbelief about how many posters on MN are defending the Camerons!! Arseholes and plonkers get to have computers too.

[NewLife4Me]

two things here.

If it's something illegal it needs investigating irrespective of if the money is worth anything to him or others.

If I lost that much each month my family would have to go without something essential like food, heating, or money to cook for food. So it does matter.

You need to remember though Mnet has lots of very rich posters, who can afford to lose thousands, look at the car thread. Some don't live in the real world at all.

YANBU.

[GeezAJammyPeece]

Ummmm. Its a week's wages for me, and given our current setup is OH (who is the higher earner) pays all the bills and I buy the food, £117 is a pretty big deal to me. Dont know about anyone else's, but only eating 3 weeks out of 4 wouldn't really work for our family.

It's £1400 a year FGS!


I suppose in the context of how much other money Cameron and his ilk have skimmed off, misclaimed and scammed, it maybe isn't all that much!
but to me and many others; NO it isn't an insignificant amount.


On the subject of MPs/ PM/ any other person in a posution of power; it doesn't matter if its £117 a month, £70,000 a day, or a penny a year; any amount of financial gain acquired by through shady means leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

[Samcro]

well if your on ESA it would be massive so a lot to get upset about

[OurBlanche]

Definitely 2 issues here:

1. Are we saying that if a relative/ancestor did something illegal/on the edges of legaity/immoral then we should not inherit that money?
   

1a. Who decides what is on the edges of legaity/immoral?
1b. Where does the money go?

1. Are we saying that if a relative/ancestor did something illegal/on the edges of legaity/immoral then we should not ever try to hold a responsible job?
   

2a. For how many generations will that hold?
2b. What level of responsibility is the bar set at?

1. Is my not seeing the issue as 'disgusting' etc making me one of those being 'called' here?
   

1. £1400 a year is in no way a drop in the ocean, it is more than worth quibbling over
   

4a. But maybe not in this case, given Qs 1 + 2

[blaeberry]

The thing about Cameron resigning is nearly all those calling for his resignation would do so regardless; they don't like his politics. I didn't read any people say '" I am a true blue Tory who thinks Cameron is doing a good job but should resign over this." In the context of whether he should resign over a £117 a month gain then I would say yes if it was illegal otherwise no. Compared to other decisions made by his government it is small beer. Fortunately we get regular opportunities to replace our governments when we don't like what they do. Unfortunately nearly all the candidates on all sides seem pretty poor.

[seafoodeatit]

I agree that £117 is insignificant - not to normal people but in the bigger scheme of things because I'm sure they're making much more money from other dubious means, I remember reading in private eye that 'samcam's employer is based in a tax haven and hasn't paid any tax.

[NeedACleverNN]

It is a a lot of money.

I certainly couldn't afford to lose £117 a month.

Btw the £3 one sounds a lot on a general basis but when you read the actual bit that says she spent £230 and then was moaning over £3 is a bit different

[Enjoyingthepeace]

Not worth getting worked up about in the slightest. That's my opinion, but naturally that is driven by my financial circumstances. So I appreciate that others may be exercised by this information.

I just hope that this doesn't distract Cameron from much much bigger current issues. It's a real bug bear of mine, that this country doesn't realise how bloody lucky it is is, that our kind of political controversy is about £117 a month, and yet so many get worked up about it and the PM is forced to focus his energies on discussing this kind of issue rather than, well, leading the country.

[OurBlanche]

It did amuse me, EnjoyingthePiece.

We get all het up over inheritance issues that cause £1400 / year of financial excess... at much the same time South Africa asks its President Jacob Zuma has agreed to repay some of the £15m the government controversially spent on upgrading his private rural home.

Mumsnet focusses on the political implications of which?

Cry Freedom indeed!