To think saving beyond essentials is mostly a personal choice?

[ForKhakiLurker]

If someone isn’t struggling to cover their basic needs, does saving mostly come down to personal choice and priorities? I know there are always different circumstances and commitments but it sometimes feels like beyond a certain point it’s more about how people choose to allocate their money.

AIBU?

There are a suspicious amount of posts about the feckless poor who didn’t save for a rainy day.

predictably, it will be their fault when they starve/ have their house repossessed because there is no employment for them or the can’t afford their commitments in a COL crisis.

because in simplistic undeserving poor world, saving means you never lace a financial problem

Of course it matters. Being affluent doesn’t automatically mean you have a good financial attitude. I know plenty of broke people who earn well and spend stupidly

No being affluent means you can easily afford to do more than

1. essentials
2. save

it means you don’t have to sacrifice living and fun for savings which poor people may have to

A personal choice. Who else's would it be?

If you're asking should you then the answer is yes. If you can obviously.

It's all personal choice but if you covering basic needs and not saving then it's rather foolish IMO.

But that doesn’t mean that your priorities shouldn’t be essentials and then save…then you can have fun.

We have a different understanding of essential in that case. For me essential is housing, food, clothing and transport. Everything else is discretionary to some degree, including saving.

Definitely a choice (once basic needs are met). You hear people talk about spenders and savers and in my experience that is a thing. My grandparents were spenders, if they had money they would spend it, they were very generous and really enjoyed life. They explained to me at an early age their philosophy, spend it while you have it. They did not believe in rainy days funds and they did not save for their retirement as they expected to be funded by the state which sadly meant they struggled in later years.

I was more inclined to think that this was in answer to the numerous posts were high earners are bleating on about not knowing why they bother working. Then it comes to light that they are privately educating, over paying their mortgage, overpaying into pensions and have a fixed amount they feel that they should be saving and occasionally they have horses/pony. So are voluntarily saving or spending at least half their earnings on things they choose to.

High earners don’t bleat on about there being no point working. People on the margins of being better off on benefits, maybe.

And if you can’t afford to save and have fun you think the poor should only save.

the rich don’t have to worry about that dilemma

My take on this is it is essential “to a point” what I mean by that is if I am broke etc and something has to give then I will drop that expense.

well, to a point I suppose, if I have a 10 left at the end of the week I would see the priority as saving first then fun. So save 5 and treat myself to a coffee maybe.

This is a personal choice based on priorities. I was brought up thinking that a 'safety net' of three months expenses was mandatory, I thought everyone thought this way. After my first job I was shocked that my colleagues would spend every last penny of their wages before the month was out, drinking/clubbing/hair etc.

Yes it's a choice.

I am amazed by some people who choose not to save anything when they clearly could. I found out about a friend last week who has not added to their pension for 15 years although they earn a really decent, higher than average, wage. They have no savings at all.

It is possible that saving when poor is a way out of being poor. Having an emergency fund means you don't need to resort to credit cards and the high interest that causes when something critical goes wrong.

Once you have that fund you can then start splitting money between saving (or even investing) and fun.

The thing is it's what sort of life you want in the future. Radio 4s You and Yours has done a couple of features on people in their 20s and 30s working and saving as much as possible to retire at 40 or 50 with a property paid for.

My wife and I, as a personal example have always been savers, I retired at 55, with a little part time beer money job, she is part time because she loves her customers. We downshifted from corporate jobs at 40 to work for ourselves in a micro business, never earning more than £55k gross a year....but now we eat out 2 or 3 times a week, go away in our custom converted campervan monthly.

It's always a choice, but having grown up on benefits, I've insulated myself from having to rely on anyone or any body in the future to provide food, shelter, care etc for us.

Nailed it first go.

I'd say this depends on your age and position.

I regret not spending a bit more when I was young with my first part time jobs - once I started working properly, I saved the same money which took me a year before in two months. The previous savings turned irrelevant pretty quickly.

Than, when I got to my possible earning peak (I'm not sure I'll want to remain in the industry forever), it makes sense now to not overblow the lifestyle and save more, so I have good choices later.

I regret my grandparents didn't spend more on themselves when they were older.

Sorry but this is such a downtrodden poor person view of the world.

Having more money coming in every month over years and years is the way out of being poor. Whether that’s increased salary or less tax/ cheaper essentials, that’s how you increase wealth.

Of course it is a personal choice, and also one that is no one else's business.
Personally I think some 'fun money' is essential, otherwise life is a just a grind. You need to treat yourself, but also strike a balance.

Of course it’s personal choice, what else would it be? Weird thread.

I think where possible you should aim to have some kind of emergency savings, and some sort of plan for retirement. It’s relatively privileged to have the option, though.

I have a SIL whose life motto is “Live in the moment”. She’s 50 and practically owns nothing but her clothes. Of course, every time she has an unexpected bill, she comes to DH to ask for a loan (which, in fairness, she does always pay back, albeit eventually). She’s admitted that she has no retirement plan; DH reckons she’s hoping that they (SIL and DH) will inherit PIL’s house and then she can just live there. DH says she can try that if she wants, but he’ll be charging her rent for his half…