How 'Cheap' Are you?

[Draggletail]

4 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

As tight as a gnats chuff me . Don't like spending money ,even other peoples  . I wanted some new boots this year and mi Mam said she would buy me some for my birthday . Out shopping with her and saw some for £150 . I said I'm not spending that on some boots , mi Mam said you're not spending it , I am . Got some for £50 . Recently bought a nice summer shirt from the charity shop paid £4  . I've never heard of the name so googled it , exact same shirt £95  . Only thing I don't mind flashing  the dough on is the Good Lady and the Grandkids . 

I like your style/attitude to spending. Haven't bought clothing from a charity shop but I have from 'retro clothing shops' which is the same thing in principle, pre used second hand clothing.

[PRESLEY]

56 minutes ago, Padders said:

I'm interested in the Budgie Mr. P.

Can I have it on higher purchase?

 I like that one.   trouble is!  What about Flapper? Won't he get jealous and throw a wobbler, you know what his temper can be like.  

[Baz1]

4 hours ago, Draggletail said:

Clothes, lifestyle, food, car etc, or whatever you can think of. I don't mean how cheap are you based on income or financial means, more your attitude regarding money and spending

I'm pretty cheap. I don't go to the cheapest supermarket but I live in Levi jeans, T-shirts, sweatshirts, and Reebok trainers. I have a few John Rocha shirts that I haven't worn in a long time. If I eat out in the afternoon it would likely to be something like Subway.

So, I'd class myself as pretty cheap. (Or maybe I'm just a tight Yorkshireman!)
 

I've pretty much been sensible with spending and very rarely (even in youth) been extravagant. 

 

Always been comfy in average joggers and top- even now with a good salary, I'm still wearing George label clothes or simple jeans etc. 

 

Don't eat out a lot, when do then take family to local decent average restaurant.

If I end up in a posh London venue, then 💯 it'll be a corporate dinner or company paid one- and been to some very expensive places.

[peak4]

8 hours ago, YorkieontheTyne said:

Can I “re tweet” this?
Agreed PRESLEY, Levi’s are expensive, as are Reebok trainers. But they all work out cheaper in the long term as quality lasts.

And therein potentially lies a problem;
Sam Vimes ‘Boots’ Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness  Terry Pratchett

"Perhaps one of the most popular quotes from the Discworld series is Sam Vimes’s ‘Boots’ Theory of Socio-economic Unfairness, propounded in Men at Arms:

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

With the fifty-dollar boots, Vimes knew that he would save money in the long term and that his feet would be dry for many years, but lacking the money for that initial outlay he is caught in the trap of spending more money over the years, and a significantly longer time with wet feet."

[Ridgewalk]

12 hours ago, hackey lad said:

As tight as a gnats chuff me . Don't like spending money ,even other peoples  . I wanted some new boots this year and mi Mam said she would buy me some for my birthday . Out shopping with her and saw some for £150 . I said I'm not spending that on some boots , mi Mam said you're not spending it , I am . Got some for £50 . Recently bought a nice summer shirt from the charity shop paid £4  . I've never heard of the name so googled it , exact same shirt £95  . Only thing I don't mind flashing  the dough on is the Good Lady and the Grandkids . 

£150 sponduliks on shoes !!! WTF !!!

[Ridgewalk]

Just now, Ridgewalk said:

£150 sponduliks on shoes !!! WTF !!!

Mind you my mate spent a few grand on a watch, ditto my son in law, not the same watch mind. 
For something that tells the time !!! Just look at the sun, or listen to your stomach. I accurately predict the time, eyesight not so good though, or perhaps that’s something else 😚

[Ridgewalk]

12 hours ago, Draggletail said:

I like your style/attitude to spending. Haven't bought clothing from a charity shop but I have from 'retro clothing shops' which is the same thing in principle, pre used second hand clothing.

I’m not trendy enough to shop for clothes at Charity shops. And I live in Hoyland not Dore and Totley 

[RollingJ]

3 minutes ago, Ridgewalk said:

I’m not trendy enough to shop for clothes at Charity shops. And I live in Hoyland not Dore and Totley 

Where you live has no influence - or shouldn't have - on how you dress.

[YorkieontheTyne]

6 hours ago, peak4 said:

And therein potentially lies a problem;
Sam Vimes ‘Boots’ Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness  Terry Pratchett

"Perhaps one of the most popular quotes from the Discworld series is Sam Vimes’s ‘Boots’ Theory of Socio-economic Unfairness, propounded in Men at Arms:

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

With the fifty-dollar boots, Vimes knew that he would save money in the long term and that his feet would be dry for many years, but lacking the money for that initial outlay he is caught in the trap of spending more money over the years, and a significantly longer time with wet feet."

Sorry but I’m not into all this theory nonsense. I’ve followed my parents practical example all my life. Work hard, save up, buy things. Best I could afford. Also, I’ve never paid for owt in dollars. Pounds and pence works really well.

 

[spilldig]

It's a good question this one and I don't really know the answer so I will have to let others decide.  We never waste food, everything we buy gets eaten which if you don't want to put weight on means we buy very little and we never eat out except on holidays. We don't have contracts on our smartphones,  everything is on PAYG.  £20 worth of credit does me for about 2 years everything else is on WiFi, no data. I don't insure anything that I don't have to because I look at insurance companies as con-merchants anyway.  We never get taxis if we can walk or catch a bus.  By the time I buy a new item of clothing, about every 10 or 12 years the old clothes are back in fashion again. We don't have netflix sky virgin or any other, as I see it, con-merchants also. On the other hand I don't mind spending a grand or two when it comes to holidays.